Bloom v. Camp

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: ELLINGTON, Presiding Judge.
• Citation: Bloom v. Camp, 336 Ga.App. 891, 785 S.E.2d 573 (Ga. App. 2016)
• Decision Date: 21 April 2016
• Docket Number: No. A16A0066.,A16A0066.
• Parties: BLOOM v. CAMP.

336 Ga.App. 891

785 S.E.2d 573

BLOOM

v.CAMP.

No. A16A0066.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

April 21, 2016.

Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry, James Marion Kane, Atlanta, Jill R. Johnson, for Appellant.

Bannister & Black, Charles Clay Black, for Appellee.

ELLINGTON, Presiding Judge.

David Camp brought this action in the Superior Court of Cobb County against Stephen Bloom and the estate of David Wood. As to the estate of David Wood, Camp sought, inter alia, to recover $104,800, the balance due Camp under a promissory note executed by Wood. As to Bloom, Camp sought damages under theories of fraudulent transfer, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment, all arising from a warranty deed whereby Wood, as grantor, conveyed property to himself and to Bloom as joint tenants with right of survivorship, allegedly to shield the property from creditors, including Camp.

When the case was called for trial, the representative of Wood's estate did not participate in the jury trial or present any defense. At the close of the evidence, the trial court granted Camp's motion for a directed verdict against Wood's estate for $104,800 due under the promissory note, plus 10 percent of that amount in attorney fees as provided in that note and authorized by a statute regarding the collection of promissory notes.¹ Bloom also moved for a directed verdict, but the trial court denied his motion and submitted Camp's claims against him to the jury, including Camp's demand for actual attorney fees if the jury found that Bloom acted in bad faith, was stubbornly litigious, or caused unnecessary trouble or expense.² The jury returned a general verdict in Camp's favor for $104,800, plus attorney fees of $27,750. In the final judgment on the directed verdict and the jury verdict, the court entered judgment in the amount of $104,800 against Wood's estate and Bloom jointly, against the estate for attorney fees of $10,480, and against Bloom individually for attorney fees of $27,750.

Bloom appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to authorize a verdict against him under any of Camp's theories of recovery. Bloom contends that Camp's claim for actual attorney fees and expenses of litigation under OCGA § 13–6–11 was not supported by any evidence that he acted in bad faith, was stubbornly litigious, or caused unnecessary trouble or expense and that the trial court erred in not having the jury apportion any such award between him and Wood's estate. He also contends that the award of attorney fees under OCGA § 13–1–11 in connection with the collection of the promissory note and under OCGA § 13–6–11 as part of his damages constitutes an impermissible double recovery. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

1. Bloom contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict under Camp's theory of fraudulent transfer and civil conspiracy. The “any evidence” standard of review applies to this argument, that is, we must affirm if there is any evidence to support the jury's verdict, and in making this determination, we must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to Camp as the prevailing party. Aldworth Co., Inc. v. England, 281 Ga. 197, 201, 637 S.E.2d 198 (2006) ; Yi v. Li, 313 Ga.App. 273, 274, 721 S.E.2d 144 (2011).

In construing a verdict, we look to the pleadings, the issues made by the evidence, and the charge. This Court must view all of the evidence and every presumption arising therefrom most favorably toward upholding the jury's verdict. It is well settled that a strong presumption exists in favor of the validity of jury verdicts. Verdicts shall have a reasonable intendment and shall receive a reasonable construction. They shall not be avoided unless from necessity. And, if possible, a construction will be given which will uphold them. There is also a presumption that the verdict of a jury is based on a fair consideration of all matters presented to it.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Davis v. Johnson, 280 Ga.App. 318, 321, 634 S.E.2d 108 (2006).

Construed in the light most favorable to Camp as the prevailing party, the record shows the following. In 2006, Camp, a home builder, embarked on a business venture with his longtime friend and sometime business partner, Crawford Wood, to develop a residential lot Crawford owned at 102 Hope Street, NW, Marietta. Crawford conveyed the lot to Camp and lent him most of the necessary money. In return, Camp gave him a promissory note for $300,000 and a deed to secure debt. Crawford died in April 2007, before Camp finished building the house.

Camp was not able to satisfy the secured promissory note then held by Crawford's estate when it came due in April 2009. Over the next few months, Camp negotiated a resolution with Crawford's adult children (David Wood, Sandra Wood, and Carole Breitenbach). They agreed to the following interrelated transactions: Sandra Wood, as executor of Crawford's estate, conveyed 102 Hope Street to Camp, via quitclaim deed, which released the estate's security interest in the property for Camp's $300,000 debt to the estate; Camp then conveyed the property to David Wood on February 18, 2010; and Wood executed a promissory note, also dated February 18, 2010, in favor of Camp in the amount of $130,000. The promissory note provided that Wood would make monthly payments of $700 for three years and a final balloon payment would be due in February 2013. Wood told Camp that he intended to pay off the note much sooner than that, either by borrowing against 102 Hope Street or by selling other property that he owned. At Wood's request, Camp agreed that the promissory note would not be secured by 102 Hope Street, to facilitate Wood's plan to obtain financing. Bloom was present during some of these discussions and during the execution of the documents.

On that same date, February 18, 2010, immediately after Camp conveyed 102 Hope Street to David Wood and Wood executed the promissory note, Wood executed a warranty deed conveying the property to himself and to Bloom, to whom he was married under California law, as joint tenants with right of survivorship. At the time, Wood was preparing to travel to India for treatment of a brain tumor; he died from his illness within a year, on February 1, 2011. As the surviving joint tenant, Bloom became the sole owner of 102 Hope Street. He was also the executor of Wood's will. Bloom did not at that time initiate proceedings to probate the will, however, on the basis that at his death Wood held all of his significant assets as a joint tenant with Bloom, with right of survivorship; little was left to distribute as directed in Wood's will. Bloom refused Camp's demand in March 2013 to pay $104,800 as the balance due him on the February 2010 promissory note, and Camp filed suit in July 2013. In June 2014, Bloom sold 102 Hope Street for $385,000.

As noted above, Camp alleged that, when David Wood was gravely ill, he conveyed 102 Hope Street to himself and to Bloom as joint tenants with right of survivorship in order to shield the property from his creditors in the event of his death. Pursuant to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act, OCGA § 18–2–70 et seq.,³ a transfer of real (or personal) property is voidable as to a creditor if the debtor made the transfer with the intention of delaying or defrauding any creditor of the debtor or, under specified circumstances, if the debtor did not receive in exchange for the transferred property reasonably equivalent value.⁴ In determining whether transfer was made with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a debtor's creditors, “consideration is given to an open-ended set of factors listed in OCGA § 18–2–74 [ (b) ], which are also commonly called the ‘badges of fraud.’ ” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) RES–GA Hightower, LLC v. Golshani, 334 Ga.App. 176, 178(1)(a), 778 S.E.2d 805 (2015). The badges of fraud may include evidence that the transfer was to an insider; the debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer; the transfer or obligation was concealed; the value of the consideration received by the debtor was not reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred; and the transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred. OCGA § 18–2–74(b)(1), (2), (3), (8), (10). “A creditor who can show a fraudulent conveyance has numerous remedies under the Act including but not limited to avoidance of the transfer and attachment of the asset transferred.” (Footnote omitted.) Daniel F. Hinkel, 2 Pindar's Ga. Real Estate Law & Procedure, § 19:102 (7th ed., updated April 2015).⁵

Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, we conclude that some evidence authorized the jury to find Bloom liable for conspiring in a fraudulent transfer, specifically the February 2010 deed conveying David Wood's sole interest in 102 Hope Street to himself and Bloom as joint tenants with right of survivorship. It is undisputed that Wood received no financial consideration for the transfer. The effect of the transfer was that, if he died from his illness (or otherwise) before paying off the promissory note to Camp, as indeed happened, the transfer would leave Bloom as the survivor with sole ownership and Wood's primary asset in Georgia would be out of Camp's reach as a creditor with a claim against his estate. If, on the other hand, he had not died before the balloon payment came due, and Camp had obtained a judgment against him for the debt, any levy on the judgment against the property would have garnered an interest only in Wood's share in the joint tenancy with Bloom, equal to but not superior to Bloom's interest. See OCGA §§ 9–13–10 ; 9–13–60; Glover v. Ware, 236 Ga.App. 40, 41–43(1), 510 S.E.2d 895 (1999). In light of evidence which includes Wood's request that Camp accept his word as his bond, rather than requiring security for the debt, and his promise to satisfy the debt quickly, the timing of the...