Rimert v. Meriwether & Tharp, LLC

Citation865 S.E.2d 199,361 Ga.App. 589
Decision Date25 October 2021
Docket NumberA21A1010, A21A1011, A21A1012
Parties RIMERT v. MERIWETHER & THARP, LLC et al. Meriwether & Tharp, LLC et al. v. Rimert. Meriwether & Tharp, LLC et al. v. Valade.
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

Charles W. Rutter Jr., Canton, for Appellant in A21A1010.

Christine Lupo Mast, Brynda Rodriguez Insley, Atlanta, Aaron L. Strimban, Marietta, Zachary Stephen Lewis, Atlanta, Robert Benton Tidwell, John Daran Burns, for Appellee in A21A1010.

Christine Lupo Mast, Zachary Stephen Lewis, Atlanta, for Appellant in A21A1011 and A21A1012.

Charles W. Rutter Jr., Canton, for Appellee in A21A1011.

Charles W. Rutter Jr., Canton, Aaron L. Strimban, Marietta, Robert Benton Tidwell, John Daran Burns, for Appellee in A21A1012.

Reese, Judge.

This invasion of privacy and legal malpractice lawsuit arose from the divorce and child custody litigation between Jennifer Valade and Kenneth Valade. Kenneth Valade, allegedly at the advice of his attorneys — Elizabeth Doak, Patrick Meriwether, and Meriwether & Tharp, LLC (collectively, the "Attorneys") — secretly recorded Jennifer Valade and Crystal Rimert in a bedroom and subsequently distributed those recordings. The trial court, in a partial summary judgment order: (1) granted summary judgment in favor of the Attorneys on Rimert's claims of negligent training and supervision of Doak; (2) granted summary judgment in favor of the Attorneys on Rimert's claim of liability per se for a violation of Georgia's criminal wiretapping statute, OCGA § 16-11-62 (2) ; (3) denied the Attorneys’ summary judgment motion on Kenneth Valade's claims of legal malpractice; and (4) denied the Attorneys’ summary judgment motion with respect to Rimert's invasion of privacy claims against the Attorneys. This appeal by Rimert and the Attorneys followed. For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm in Case No. A21A1010, affirm in part and reverse in part in Case No. A21A1011, and reverse in Case No. A21A1012.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the respective nonmoving parties below,1 the record shows the following. Jennifer Valade filed for divorce against Kenneth Valade in July 2013. Kenneth Valade hired the Attorneys to represent him in the divorce. Doak graduated law school in 2010 and had been working at Meriwether & Tharp the prior three years since passing the Georgia Bar. According to Kenneth Valade, during an initial meeting with the Attorneys, Meriwether advised him to place a "nanny cam" in Jennifer Valade's bedroom, and that it was legal to do so and directly related to the issues in the divorce. Doak agreed with this advice. At the time, the court had a standing order in divorce actions that prohibited a party from "placing under surveillance ... for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other party[.]"

Kenneth Valade proceeded to install in Jennifer Valade's bedroom a covert surveillance camera that he had received from a private investigator. At the time, the Valades were not living together, with Jennifer Valade occupying the marital home on the weekdays, and Kenneth Valade occupying the home on the weekends. The camera was motion-activated and video was recorded to an SD card. Among other recordings, the camera captured Jennifer Valade and Rimert in bed together having sexual relations.

Kenneth Valade showed the recordings to Doak and the private investigator. Meriwether sent a letter to Jennifer Valade's counsel on August 2, 2013, stating that Kenneth Valade had recently become aware that Jennifer Valade was having sex with Rimert in the marital home. The letter demanded that "[t]his behavior must stop immediately ." (Emphasis in original). Otherwise, Kenneth Valade would seek an emergency hearing, which would "force him to present all evidence of Ms. Valade's adulterous, lesbian relationship thereby making it public record." The Attorneys subsequently filed a motion with the trial court seeking an emergency hearing. The motion revealed that Kenneth Valade had placed a camera in the home, which had recorded Jennifer Valade and Rimert engaging in sexual relations.

The court decided to consider the Attorneys’ motion on the regular motions calendar, but held an emergency hearing on August 15, 2013, after Jennifer Valade made allegations of domestic violence against Kenneth Valade. Doak represented Kenneth Valade at the hearing. Jennifer Valade alleged that Kenneth Valade had pinned her against a wall and shoved her down the basement steps. She took pictures of the bruises, reported the incident to the police, and showed the bruises to a deputy. She also alleged at the hearing that Kenneth Valade had shaken, pushed, and thrown objects at their daughter. Kenneth Valade denied hurting his wife and child, but stated that he had, at the advice of counsel, placed a camera in the bedroom. The court granted Jennifer Valade's request for a family violence protective order.

A day after the hearing, the State issued a warrant for Kenneth Valade's arrest for aggravated stalking and unlawful surveillance. The State later indicted him for burglary, aggravated stalking, invasion of privacy, and family violence battery. The first three charges were based on him placing a camera in the bedroom. The State ultimately nolle prossed all the charges.

Rimert filed a complaint against Kenneth Valade, the Attorneys, and others alleging claims against the Attorneys of, among other things: violations of her right to privacy under OCGA § 16-11-62 (2), (6), and (7) ; negligent training and supervision by Meriwether & Tharp over its employee Doak; and violations of Rimert's common law right to privacy. Kenneth Valade filed a cross-claim against the Attorneys for professional negligence and malpractice. The Attorneys filed a motion for summary judgment on Rimert's and Kenneth Valade's claims, which the trial court granted in part and denied in part. These appeals by Rimert and the Attorneys followed.

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.2

With these guiding principles in mind, we now turn to the parties’ claims of error.

Case No. A21A1010

1. Rimert argues that the trial court erred in granting the Attorneys’ summary judgment motion regarding her claims of negligent supervision and training of Doak. The trial court below found that Rimert cited to no evidence that Doak was somehow unsuited to represent Kenneth Valade or that Meriwether & Tharp was aware of some inability.

"An employer may be held liable for negligent supervision only where there is sufficient evidence to establish that the employer reasonably knew or should have known of an employee's tendencies to engage in certain behavior relevant to the injuries allegedly incurred by the plaintiff."3 Here, Rimert primarily cites to Doak's relative inexperience in the legal issues presented in this case. However, we agree with the trial court that the record was devoid of evidence that Meriwether & Tharp disregarded indications that Doak was somehow unsuited for representation. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on this claim.4

2. Rimert argues that the trial court erred in granting the Attorneys’ summary judgment motion regarding her claims that the defendants violated OCGA § 16-11-62 (2) and were thus per se liable. She contends that the factfinder should determine whether the purpose of the recordings fell under the crime-detection exception to the statute, or whether the recordings were made for some other impermissible purpose.

At the time of the surveillance in 2013, OCGA § 16-11-62, a criminal statute, provided:

It shall be unlawful for:
...
(2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view; provided, however, that it shall not be unlawful:
...
(C) To use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are within the curtilage of the residence of the person using such device. A photograph, videotape, or record made in accordance with this subparagraph, or a copy thereof, may be disclosed by such resident to the district attorney or a law enforcement officer and shall be admissible in a judicial proceeding, without the consent of any person observed, photographed, or recorded[.]

In Rutter v. Rutter (" Rutter I "), issued about one year before the Attorneys’ advice to Kenneth Valade, we held that the trial court in a divorce action properly denied a motion to exclude a surreptitious recording of an opposing spouse in the marital home.5 In that case, OCGA § 16-11-62 (2) did not bar admission of the recording because the wife set up the recording for the purpose of crime detection, in order to document harm the husband might visit upon the children.6 Subsection (C) to OCGA § 16-11-62 (2) applied even though the wife's primary objective was to obtain custody in the divorce proceeding.7 The Attorneys explicitly relied upon Rutter I and OCGA § 16-11-62 (2) (C) in their pleadings in the Valade divorce action. The Attorneys claimed that Kenneth Valade was "concerned" with the crime of adultery, which is a misdemeanor under OCGA § 16-6-19.8

In October 2013, about two months after Kenneth Valade made the recordings, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed our decision in Rutter I (" Rutter II ").9 The Court held that subparagraph (C) of OCGA § 16-11-62 (2), which was enacted by a House bill in 2000, did not survive the enactment of a Senate bill a week later because the Senate bill did not contain the subparagraph.10 Accordingly, given the Supreme Court's holding in Rutter...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Ramirez-Ortiz v. State
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • October 25, 2021
  • Valade v. Meriwether & Tharp, LLC
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • June 27, 2022
    ...as to the defendants with regard to this issue.2. I concur fully with the majority with Division 2.1 See Rimert v. Meriwether &Tharp , 361 Ga. App. 589, 865 S.E.2d 199 (2021).2 Rimert , 361 Ga. App. at 590, 865 S.E.2d 199 (footnote omitted).3 Rimert , 361 Ga. App. at 591, 865 S.E.2d 199 (pu......
  • Valade v. Meriwether & Tharp, LLC
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • June 27, 2022
    ...... Valade. Kenneth Valade, allegedly at the advice of his. attorneys - Elizabeth Doak, Patrick Meriwether, and. Meriwether & Tharp, LLC (collectively, the. "Attorneys") - secretly recorded Jennifer Valade. and Crystal Rimert in a bedroom and subsequently distributed. those recordings. The trial court issued a partial summary. judgment order, and Jennifer Valade, Rimert, and the. Attorneys all appealed from that order. We have already. addressed Rimert's and the Attorneys'. appeals,[1] and ......
  • Morgan v. Am. Airlines
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • September 29, 2022
    ...... incurred by the plaintiff.” Rimert v. Meriwether. & Tharp, LLC, 361 Ga.App. 589, 592 (2022) (quoting. Leo v. Waffle House, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT