NORTH AMERICAN SENIOR BENEFITS, LLC v. ALISHA WIMMER

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: October 10, 2024
• Docket: A23A0162
• Status: Published

Opinion

FIFTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, P. J., HODGES and PIPKIN, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

October 10, 2024

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A23A0162. NORTH AMERICAN SENIOR BENEFITS, LLC v. WIMMER et al.

MCFADDEN, Presiding Judge.

This case is about construction of the provision in Georgia’s Restrictive

Covenants Act under which “contracts that restrict competition during the term of

a restrictive covenant” are enforceable “so long as such restrictions are reasonable in

time, geographic area, and scope of prohibited activities.” OCGA § 13-8-53 (a). We

construed that provision to require “an expressly stated geographic area.” North

American Senior Benefits v. Wimmer, 368 Ga. App. 124, 126 (2) (889 SE2d 361) (2023).

Our Supreme Court reversed, holding that subsection (a) does not require “an

explicit geographic term.” North American Senior Benefits v. Wimmer, __ Ga. __ , __

(2) (__ SE2d __) (Case No. S23G1146, decided Sept. 4, 2024). Rather, “a covenant’s geographic area” may be “expressed in implied terms.” Id. Indeed, the

“question boils down to” reasonableness “in light of all the circumstances,” and the

non-recruitment covenant at issue may be found reasonable, “regardless of the

employee’s location.” Id. at __. The Supreme Court remanded the case to us,

directed us to reverse the judgment of the State-wide Business Court and to remand

so that the Business Court could assess in the first instance whether the restrictive

covenant at issue is reasonable under OCGA § 13-8-53 (a). __ Ga. at __ (2).

Accordingly, we adopt the Supreme Court’s opinion as our own, reverse the

judgment of the State-wide Business Court, and remand to the State-wide Business

Court for proceedings consistent with the opinion of our Supreme Court.

Judgment reversed and case remanded. Brown and Markle, JJ., concur.