Henson v. American Family Corp., s. 68317
Decision Date | 15 June 1984 |
Docket Number | 68318,Nos. 68317,s. 68317 |
Citation | 171 Ga.App. 724,321 S.E.2d 205 |
Parties | HENSON v. AMERICAN FAMILY CORPORATION et al. AMERICAN FAMILY CORPORATION v. HENSON. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Francis C. Schenck, Nickolas P. Chilivis, Atlanta, for appellant.
Garland T. Byrd, Butler, Denmark Groover, Jr., Macon, Forrest L. Champion, Jr., Columbus, for appellees.
This case originated in May of 1978, as an action in equity by American Family Corporation to require its recently discharged general counsel, Kenneth M. Henson, to cease acting in that capacity and to turn over all corporate records and files in his possession. A temporary restraining order granting this relief was issued ex parte on the day the suit was filed, and Henson subsequently turned over the requested documents.
No further action has ever been taken on the complaint; however, the case has remained pending on a counterclaim filed by Henson alleging that the corporation breached a long-term retainer agreement with him and that a tortious conspiracy existed among several of its officers and directors to interfere with his rights under that agreement. In addition, Henson alleged a right to indemnification, pursuant to certain provisions of the corporation's articles of incorporation and by-laws, for his legal expense resulting from the litigation. The counterclaim was subsequently amended to assert additional claims for malicious use and abuse of process, libel, and tortious conspiracy to violate Henson's civil rights. The officers and agents who were alleged to have conspired to violate Henson's rights were joined as additional counterclaim defendants, as was American Family Life Assurance Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of American Family Corporation. At all times relevant to this litigation, American Family Corporation and American Family Life Assurance Corporation shared many of the same officers and directors (including John Amos, the president and chief executive officer of both companies) and they have been treated by both sides as a single entity for virtually all purposes. They will henceforth be referred to together in this opinion as "American Family."
In November of 1983, following 5 1/2 years of litigation and discovery which have generated almost 3,000 pages of record, the trial court issued several rulings which are the subject of these appeals. Summary judgment was granted to all the individual counterclaim defendants as to all claims and to American Family as to all the tort claims. However, the court denied cross motions for summary judgment by Henson and American Family as to the breach of contract and indemnification claims. In conjunction with these rulings, the court also granted a motion by American Family to strike all claims for punitive damages. Finally, the court entered an order continuing in effect certain restrictions which it had previously placed on Henson with respect to his attempts to obtain discovery regarding American Family's business dealings in Japan.
Despite the complexity of the litigation, the facts giving rise to Henson's counterclaims may be simply stated. On January 17, 1972, American Family's president, John Amos, delivered a letter to Henson (who had been representing the company for at least a year as a member of the firm of Kelly, Champion & Henson), stating as follows:
Henson executed his acceptance of this offer, as requested. On September 18, 1975, Amos sent him another letter, supplementing the 1972 letter as follows:
Henson executed his written acceptance of these terms, and the two letters together constitute the alleged contract upon which Henson seeks to recover.
American Family's Board of Directors initially elected Henson to the position of general counsel in April of 1972, "subject to removal by action of the Board at any time it shall be deemed necessary," and the board continued to elect him to that post each year thereafter until 1978. On May 3, 1978, Amos notified Henson in writing that he was discharged as general counsel and instructed him to surrender all corporate files and records. The action in equity was initiated two days later.
During his tenure as general counsel, Henson's annual salary was increased twice, once in December of 1972 to $30,000 per year, and again as of January 1977 to $45,000 per year. There has never been any dispute as to the amount of compensation called for under the agreement. Held:
1. The trial court did not err in concluding that material issues of fact remain to be tried as to whether the letter agreements constitute an enforceable retainer contract between Henson and American Family. The primary factual issue is whether Amos was authorized by the board of directors to enter into such a contract. Under the applicable corporate by-laws, Amos, as president, had general charge of the business and was empowered to sign and execute all "authorized" contracts on American Family's behalf. While it is quite clear that the board of directors never expressly authorized Amos to sign either of the letter agreements, Henson contends that he relied on Amos' implied or apparent authorization to sign such contracts on the corporation's behalf. He further contends that the board impliedly ratified the agreements by confirming him as general counsel annually from 1972 to 1978, with knowledge of their existence. The counterclaim defendants, on the other hand, maintain that the existence of the letters was not revealed to the board until after Henson's discharge; and Amos has testified that at the time he and Henson signed the 1972 letter, he told Henson that the board would never ratify the arrangement if it were submitted for their approval. The counterclaim defendants further argue that Henson is estopped from alleging that he relied in good faith on Amos' apparent authority because, having handled the corporation's legal affairs both before and after 1972, Henson either knew or should have known the extent of Amos' actual authority under the articles of incorporation and by-laws.
While the above circumstances certainly may make it difficult for Henson to prove his case at trial, we cannot conclude as a matter of law on the record before us that the letter agreements either were or were not authorized by the board of directors. Accord Newton v. Social Circle &c. Co., 174 Ga. 320, 162 S.E. 667 (1931); Eminent Household of Columbian Woodmen v. George E. Benz & Co., 11 Ga.App. 733 (2), 736, 76 S.E. 99 (1912). Similarly, we cannot say as a matter of law that the transaction does not meet the criteria set forth in OCGA § 14-2-155(a)(3), governing the validity of contracts between corporations and interested officers. To be entitled to summary judgment, a party must conclusively eliminate all material issues in the case, even those upon which the opposing party would have the burden of proof at trial, and the latter is given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and all favorable inferences...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wolk v. Teledyne Industries, Inc.
...Georgia law for his allegation that these defendants accurately republished the Omnibus Discovery Order. Henson v. American Family Corp., 171 Ga.App. 724, 321 S.E.2d 205, 212 (1984) (any republication of judicial proceedings or filings resulting from a fair and honest report of the proceedi......
-
Mcqueen, Rains & Tresch, Llp v. Citgo Pet.
...judgment ultimately realized by the client. Deduction for services yet to be performed should not be made.]; Henson v. American Family Corp., 171 Ga.App. 724, 321 S.E.2d 205 (1984) [Recognizing that letter agreements were enforceable if approved by the appropriate authority.]; Ohio & M.Ry.C......
-
Suber v. Bulloch County Bd. of Educ.
...duties. Therefore, these defendants are also not third parties to plaintiff's teaching contract. See Henson v. American Family Corporation, 171 Ga. App. 724, 321 S.E.2d 205 (1984); see also Rhine v. Sanders, 100 Ga.App. 68, 110 S.E.2d 128 (1959). Plaintiff has no cause of action for tortiou......
-
Smith v. Northside Hosp., Inc.
...for summary judgment when the requested discovery was "immaterial" to the disposition of the motion); Henson v. Am. Family Corp ., 171 Ga. App. 724, 732 (10), 321 S.E.2d 205 (1984) (affirming the trial court’s enforcement of previously imposed restrictions on discovery, noting that a "trial......
-
Legal Ethics - Jack L. Sammons
...at 726. 53. Id., 434 S.E.2d at 726-27. The trial court did not announce the basis for its ruling. 54. Id. at 843, 434 S.E.2d at 728. 55. 171 Ga. App. 724, 321 S.E.2d 205 (1984). 56. McNulty, George & Hall v. Pruden, 62 Ga. 135 (1878). 57. 209 Ga. App. at 843, 434 S.E.2d at 728. 58. Id. at 8......
-
Long-term Employment Agreements With In-house Counsel: Employment Security or Ethical Quagmire?
...428 (1947). 2. See Myszka v. Henson & Henson, P.C., 170 Ga. App. 878, 879, 318 S.E.2d 672, 673 (1984). 3. Henson v. Am. Family Corp., 171 Ga. App. 724, 728, S.E.2d 205, 210 (1984) (quoting Pickens Co. v. Thomas, 152 Ga. 648, 652, 111 S.E. 27, 29 (1922)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 4......
-
Use and Misuse of O.c.g.a. 9-11-30(b)(6)
...67 (N.D. Cal. 2000). 36. The Court's discretion in overseeing discovery is exceptionally broad. See Henson v. American Family Corp., 171 Ga. App. 724, 732, 321 S.E.2d 205 (1984). Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-11-26(c) (2000): Upon motion by a party . . . and for good cause shown, the court in whic......