Automated Summary
Key Facts
The plaintiff was injured in a common area while visiting his sister, who was a tenant of the Fairington Park condominiums. The unit owner did not obtain permission from the Condominium Board to lease the unit. The plaintiff's counsel appealed the trial court's award of attorney fees against them under OCGA § 9-15-14. The court distinguished this case from Gomez v. Julian LeCraw & Co. because the tenant here rented from the property owner without a special agreement precluding visitors, and the plaintiff was a visitor, not an unapproved tenant.
Issues
The Court of Appeals reviews whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14(a) and (b) against plaintiff's counsel. The court distinguishes this case from Gomez v. Julian LeCraw & Co. and concludes that the trial court erred because the case is distinguishable—the plaintiff was a visitor, not an unapproved tenant, and there was no special agreement between the unit owner and tenant precluding a visitor. The court reverses the attorney fee award.
Holdings
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's award of attorney fees against plaintiff's counsel under OCGA § 9-15-14 (a) and (b). The court found the trial court erred because the case was distinguishable from Gomez v. Julian LeCraw & Co. on two grounds: (1) the plaintiff was a visitor rather than an unapproved tenant, and (2) there was no special agreement between the unit owner and tenant precluding the visitor, as the Condo Association did not own the property and there was no special agreement between the Condo Association and the tenant.
Remedies
The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the trial court's judgment awarding attorney fees against plaintiff's counsel under OCGA § 9-15-14 (a) and (b). The court concluded that the trial court erred in applying the Gomez v. Julian LeCraw & Co. precedent to this case, as the facts were distinguishable.
Legal Principles
The court applies OCGA § 9-15-14(a) and (b) for attorney fee awards. Subsection (a) provides for attorney fees when a party asserts a position for which there is a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact; subsection (b) provides for an award when a party's position lacks substantial justification. The court reviews subsection (a) awards to affirm if there is any evidence to support them, while subsection (b) awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion. OCGA § 9-15-14(a) is intended to discourage the bringing of frivolous claims, not the presentation of questions of first impression about which reasonable minds might disagree or the assertion of novel legal theories that find arguable, albeit limited, support in existing case law and statutes.
Precedent Name
- Fox v. City of Cumming
- Renton v. Watson
- Fulton County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Boyajian
- Gomez v. Julian LeCraw & Co.
Cited Statute
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
Judge Name
- Presiding Judge Doyle
- Judge McFadden
- Judge Boggs
Passage Text
- We must 'affirm an award under subsection (a) if there is any evidence to support it, while we review subsection (b) awards for abuse of discretion.' (Citations and footnote omitted.) Fox v. City of Cumming, 298 Ga. App. 134, 135 (679 SE2d 365) (2009).
- Based upon these facts, we conclude that our decision in Gomez, supra, is arguably distinguishable on the ground that the tenant here rented the unit from the property owner and there was no special agreement between the unit owner and the tenant precluding a visitor such as the plaintiff.
- Judgment reversed. Doyle, P. J., and McFadden, J., concur.