Legacy Academy, Inc. v. Mamilove, LLC

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Legacy Academy, Inc. v. Mamilove, LLC

777 S.E.2d 731, 333 Ga. App. 897

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 6, 2015

DocketA14A0718

StatusPublished

This text of 777 S.E.2d 731 (Legacy Academy, Inc. v. Mamilove, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Legacy Academy, Inc. v. Mamilove, LLC, 777 S.E.2d 731, 333 Ga. App. 897 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLINGTON, Presiding Judge.

In Legacy Academy v. Mamilove, LLC, 328 Ga. App. 775 (761 SE2d 880) (2014), this Court affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiffs Mamilove, LLC, Michele Reymond, and Lorraine Reymond (collectively, “Mamilove”). In Legacy Academy v. Mamilove, LLC, 297 Ga. 15 (771 SE2d 868) (2015), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed Divisions 4 and 5 of this Court’s opinion, finding that Legacy Academy, Inc. and its officers, Frank and Melissa Turner (collectively, “Legacy”), were entitled to a directed verdict on Mamilove’s claims for rescission, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Georgia RICO statute. Accordingly, we vacate Divisions 4 and 5 of our opinion and adopt the opinion of our Supreme Court as our own in place of those divisions.

In light of the foregoing, Divisions 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11 of our previous opinion address issues which are now moot; accordingly, we vacate these divisions. The Supreme Court did not address Divisions 1, 6, and 8. The analysis in Division 7 of our opinion, in which we considered whether the trial court erred in denying Legacy’s motion for a directed verdict on its counterclaim for breach of contract, was based on two alternate grounds. That portion of Division 7 that is based on our conclusion that the jury found that the franchise agreement was rescinded, particularly the second sentence of the first paragraph of Division 7 and the accompanying citation, is inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. That portion of Division 7 is therefore vacated. See Shadix v. Carroll County, 274 Ga. 560, 563-564 (1) (554 SE2d 465) (2001).

In accordance with the directive of the Supreme Court, the jury’s verdict, “in its entirety,” must be reversed and the case remanded for *898 a new trial on the parties’ claims, other than for rescission, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Georgia RICO statute.

Decided September 24, 2015. C. David Joyner; Gregory, Doyle, Calhoun & Rogers, Stuart L. Sims, Charles L. Bachman, Jr., for appellant. Ichter Thomas, Cary Ichter, W. Daniel Davis, for appellee.

Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction.

Andrews, P. J., Barnes, P. J., Phipps, P. J., McFadden, Ray and McMillian, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ELLINGTON, Presiding Judge.

In Legacy Academy v. Mamilove, LLC, 328 Ga. App. 775 (761 SE2d 880) (2014), this Court affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiffs Mamilove, LLC, Michele Reymond, and Lorraine Reymond (collectively, “Mamilove”). In Legacy Academy v. Mamilove, LLC, 297 Ga. 15 (771 SE2d 868) (2015), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed Divisions 4 and 5 of this Court’s opinion, finding that Legacy Academy, Inc. and its officers, Frank and Melissa Turner (collectively, “Legacy”), were entitled to a directed verdict on Mamilove’s claims for rescission, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Georgia RICO statute. Accordingly, we vacate Divisions 4 and 5 of our opinion and adopt the opinion of our Supreme Court as our own in place of those divisions.

In light of the foregoing, Divisions 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11 of our previous opinion address issues which are now moot; accordingly, we vacate these divisions. The Supreme Court did not address Divisions 1, 6, and 8. The analysis in Division 7 of our opinion, in which we considered whether the trial court erred in denying Legacy’s motion for a directed verdict on its counterclaim for breach of contract, was based on two alternate grounds. That portion of Division 7 that is based on our conclusion that the jury found that the franchise agreement was rescinded, particularly the second sentence of the first paragraph of Division 7 and the accompanying citation, is inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. That portion of Division 7 is therefore vacated. See Shadix v. Carroll County, 274 Ga. 560, 563-564 (1) (554 SE2d 465) (2001).

In accordance with the directive of the Supreme Court, the jury’s verdict, “in its entirety,” must be reversed and the case remanded for *898 a new trial on the parties’ claims, other than for rescission, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Georgia RICO statute.

Decided September 24, 2015. C. David Joyner; Gregory, Doyle, Calhoun & Rogers, Stuart L. Sims, Charles L. Bachman, Jr., for appellant. Ichter Thomas, Cary Ichter, W. Daniel Davis, for appellee.

Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction.

Andrews, P. J., Barnes, P. J., Phipps, P. J., McFadden, Ray and McMillian, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

777 S.E.2d 731, 333 Ga. App. 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/legacy-academy-inc-v-mamilove-llc-gactapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack