Lollis v. Turner
| Decision Date | 15 November 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. A07A0886.,A07A0886. |
| Citation | 654 S.E.2d 229,288 Ga. App. 419 |
| Parties | LOLLIS et al. v. TURNER. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Alexander & Vann, William C. Sanders, Thomasville, for appellants.
Jones, Cork & Miller, Callie Dickson Bryan, Hubert C. Lovein, Jr., Macon, for appellee.
In this interlocutory appeal, Chlois Lollis appeals from the trial court's partial denial of her motion for summary judgment in a case alleging that she negligently performed a ministerial duty in her position as Clerk of Cook County Superior Court.1 Because Georgia law does not recognize the theory of recovery asserted by appellee, we reverse.
Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact appears and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56(c). We review the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp., 226 Ga.App. 459(1), 486 S.E.2d 684 (1997). So viewed, the record shows that Edith Turner sued Lollis because Lollis's alleged negligence prevented Turner from collecting a judgment against a third party, Bill Donald. In 1999, Turner obtained a $26,860 default judgment against Donald in Florida after he failed to repay a loan and domesticated it in Cook County, Georgia.
In March 2001, Donald was named as a party defendant in a breach of contract action filed by Mike Donley in Cook County Superior Court, along with two corporations, Golf Cars by Legend (Florida) and Golf Cars by Legend (Georgia). This case involved the sale of a business, Golf Cars by Legend (Florida), and all of its assets to Donley. 2
As part of this lawsuit, Donley made monthly payments into the court registry. When Turner learned of this lawsuit and the payments into the court registry, she initiated a separate lawsuit titled "Complaint to Impound Funds" and obtained another default judgment against Donald.3
The December 18, 2002 default judgment in Turner's case provided that
the clerk of the court is hereby directed and ordered to withhold from distribution all funds now held in the registry of the court and which may continue to accrue in the registry of the court which belong to may belong to, or are claimed to be the funds of Defendant Bill Donald or any other of the defendants. . . . Distribution of the funds shall not occur until such time as the plaintiff in the case sub judice is given time and notice by the court that a distribution of funds is sought by the parties. . . . Plaintiff shall have the right to appear at said hearing and shall be allowed to show her entitlement to all or a portion of the funds in satisfaction of the FI FA, which she holds . . . against defendant Bill Donald. . . . The clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be placed in the record [in the other case].
In 2003, Golf Cars by Legend (Georgia) asserted a counterclaim in the Donley lawsuit and requested that the money in the court registry be paid to it. The case was settled after mediation, and on May 28, 2003, the trial court issued the following order:
The Clerk of Cook Superior Court is hereby ordered to release all monies held by her in the above case to the attorney for the defendant, Berrien L. Sutton, for distribution to the defendant. All future payments shall be made by the Plaintiffs to the attorney for the defendants for distribution to the defendants.
The request for dissolution of the injunctive relief previously granted will be addressed at a later date if the defendants request a hearing on the same.
On June 2, 2003, Lollis issued a check in the amount of $212,895.70 to the defendants' attorney Berrien Sutton. On June 2, 2003, Sutton issued a check to Pro Golf Cars in the amount of $207,047.02. Donald testified that he "probably" endorsed this check and deposited it into the corporation's bank account in Adel, Georgia. Donald testified that he did not receive any money from the corporation after this check was deposited. Turner, after an opportunity for discovery, has presented no evidence that Donald received any of this money from the corporation.
On August 1, 2003, the trial court issued a "final order and judgment" that clarified its previous order as follows:
The indebtedness involved in this matter is owed solely to Golf Cars by Legend, Inc., a Georgia corporation, and is to, accordingly, be paid only to said Golf Cars by Legend, Inc., and neither Bill Donald nor Ernest W. Donald are the holder of or have any rights to or in the subject promissory notes or security instruments and neither Bill Donald nor Ernest W. Donald are entitled to be paid individually for the indebtedness or any portion thereof owed to said Golf Cars by Legend, Inc....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howell v. U.S. Foods, Inc. (In re Bilbo)
...Emp'r Benefits, 2010 WL 3937325 at *10 n.1 (M.D.Ga. 2010); Otero v.Vito, 2009 WL 3063426 at *6 (M.D.Ga. 2009); Lollis v. Turner, 288 Ga.App. 419, 422 (Ga.App 2007); but see Miller v. Harco Nat'l Ins. Co., 274 Ga. 387, 391 (Ga. 2001) (attributing, "at least where the business involved is a m......
-
Boeing Co. v. Yuzhnoye
...96 (Cal. App. 2008) ("outside reverse" piercing of the corporate veil is not permitted in California); Lollis v. Turner, 288 Ga. App. 419, 654 S.E.2d 229 (Ga. App. 2007) (Georgia does not recognize outsider reverse piercing); In re Phillips, 139 P.3d 639 (Colo. 2006) (Colorado permits outsi......
-
Luther W. Royal & Royal Commercial Refrigeration, Inc. v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co.
...585 S.E.2d 873, 875 (Ga. 2003). Therefore, Paul Revere "cannot use this rejected theory to support [its] claim," Lollis v. Turner, 654 S.E.2d 229, 232 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007), that O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99 shouldtoll claims that apply to RCR, despite the fact that RCR "was not accused of any crime of ......
- Mikell v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds
-
2007 Annual Review of Case Law Developments: Georgia Corporate and Business Organization Law
...Bandy, 2007 WL 4571251 (M.D. Ala., Dec. 26, 2007) addressed veil-piercing in the context of arbitration agreements and Lollis v. Turner, 288 Ga. App. 419, 654 S.E.2d 229 (2007) refused to permit "outsider reverse veil-piercing." Insurance Issues In Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. v. AFC Ente......
-
2007 Annual Review of Case Law Developments Georgia Corporate and Buissness Organization Law
...Bandy, 2007 WL 4571251 (M.D. Ala., Dec. 26, 2007) addressed veilpiercing in the context of arbitration agreements and Lollis v. Turner, 288 Ga. App. 419, 654 S.E.2d 229 (2007) refused to permit "outsider reverse veil-piercing." Insurance Issues In Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. v. AFC Enter......
-
Business Associations - Paul A. Quiros, Lynn S. Scott, William B. Shearer Iii, and William S. Smoak Jr.
...See id. at *3-*4. 53. See id. at *2-*4. 54. Id. at *1. 55. Id. 56. Id. at *2. 57. Id. at *3. 58. See id. at *4. 59. Id. 60. Id. 61. 288 Ga. App. 419, 654 S.E.2d 229 (2007). 62. Id. at 419-20, 654 S.E.2d at 230. 63. Id. at 420, 654 S.E.2d at 230-31 (internal quotation marks omitted). 64. Id.......