McMann v. Mockler
Decision Date | 06 July 1998 |
Docket Number | No. A98A1032.,A98A1032. |
Parties | McMANN v. MOCKLER. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John A. Roberts, Atlanta, for appellant.
Dominic Mockler, pro se.
Sandra McMann filed this legal malpractice case against Dominic Mockler, alleging that he failed to file an appeal from a denial of her workers' compensation claim. The court granted Mockler's motion for summary judgment.
1. In her first enumeration, McMann asserts three bases of error: the "trial court erred in determining that (a) the claims alleging malpractice were defeated because McMann could not show that she would have been unsuccessful in an appeal; (b) that the appeal would have been unsuccessful to the Appellate Division of the State Board of Workers' Compensation; and (c) that McMann failed to demonstrate any harm arising from the malpractice." All three bases challenge the trial court's finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate any harm arising from defendant's malpractice.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Whitehead v. Cuffie, 185 Ga.App. 351, 352, 364 S.E.2d 87 (1987); see also OCGA § 51-1-8. Faced with such a claim, a defendant is entitled to favorable resolution summarily if he can show that the record reveals "that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiff's case." Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474 (1991); OCGA § 9-11-56.
For the purpose of ruling on Mockler's motion for summary judgment, the trial court assumed that McMann had hired Mockler to represent her; that Mockler had in fact promised to file an appeal of McMann's adverse workers' compensation award; that Mockler missed the filing deadline for the appeal; and that Mockler's omission breached the standard of professional conduct owed to his client. McMann's expert affidavit supported the conclusion that Mockler breached his duty to McMann.
The element of causation was the Achilles' heel. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Jaraysi v. Soloway, 215 Ga.App. 531, 532, 451 S.E.2d 521 ( 1994).
It was undisputed that McMann failed to include a transcript or record of the underlying workers' compensation case, so the trial court had to assume that the findings of the administrative law judge were supported by the record. See OCGA § 34-9-103(a); Harrell v. City of Albany Police Dept., 219 Ga.App. 810, 466 S.E.2d 682 (1996) (standard on appeal). That being the posture of the case, the court correctly ruled that McMann failed to present any evidence of harm arising from the alleged professional malpractice, i.e., that the denial of McMann's workers' compensation claim would have been reversed on appeal but for Mockler's oversight. Accordingly, the court was authorized to grant Mockler's motion for summary judgment. Failure to file an appeal which would be unsuccessful on the merits or frivolous would not harm the losing litigant but instead would save the litigant time, money, and anguish.
2. Citing Spence v. Hilliard, 181 Ga. App. 767, 768, 353 S.E.2d 634 (1987), McMann asserts that she is entitled nevertheless to survive summary judgment on the thread of nominal damages, even if she can present no evidence of actual damages resulting from defendant's oversight.
The validity of summary judgment on the malpractice claim is resolved by the conclusion that, as a matter of law, plaintiff failed to present any evidence that she suffered harm as a result of her attorney's failure to appeal from the decision of the administrative law judge. This hole in the presentation of her malpractice case ended it, as recognized by the trial court.
The issue of damages, i.e., monetary compensation for harm, is therefore moot. The trial court did not address that issue, and neither do we, as pronouncements concerning it would not be controlling authority and would not be binding precedent. Flournoy v. State, 266 Ga. 618, 619(2), 469 S.E.2d 195 (1996); White v. State, 213 Ga.App. 429, 430(1), 445 S.E.2d 309 (1994).
3. In her remaining enumeration, McMann contends that the court erred in granting summary judgment on her amended complaint, which alleged damages arising from a breach of contract for legal services, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. The court ruled that the claims were "mere duplications of the legal malpractice claim which itself is based on the establishment of a fiduciary, attorney-client relationship that is breached."
As to plaintiff's purported fraud claim, defendant's motion for summary judgment was filed before plaintiff added this and other causes of action to her malpractice claim. So defendant did not address it. Neither did the trial court. By not obtaining a ruling on the survivability of the fraud claim past the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff did not preserve this issue for appellate review. In the Interest of C.T., 197 Ga.App. 300(1), 398 S.E.2d 286 (1990). Whether she recognized this or simply abandoned the fraud cause of action along the way, she did not include it in her second enumeration of error. These missteps preclude its proper presentation to this Court for resolution. Goins v. Tucker, 227 Ga.App. 524, 529, 489 S.E.2d 857 (1997) ().
Moreover, the element of resulting injury, a necessary ingredient of a fraud claim, is absent from the amended complaint. See Little v. Fleet Finance, 224 Ga.App. 498, 500(1), 481 S.E.2d 552 (1997).
As to breach of contract, for the purposes of this opinion there is no dispute that McMann and Mockler entered into an oral contract in which Mockler agreed to provide professional legal services for a fee. This bound Mockler to abide by standards of professional conduct. Cf. Peacock v. Beall, 223 Ga.App. 465, 466, 477 S.E.2d 883 (1996) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Friedman's Inc.
...the fiduciary duty claims should be dismissed. Griffin v. Fowler, 260 Ga.App. 443, 446, 579 S.E.2d 848 (2003); McMann v. Mockler, 233 Ga.App. 279, 281, 503 S.E.2d 894 (1998). "[A] claim for fiduciary breach, which is based on the same facts and seeks the same relief as the negligence claim,......
-
Griffin v. Fowler, No. A02A1853.
...Griffin that he had concerns about Richardi serving as the trustee of Griffin's trusts. We disagree. We held in McMann v. Mockler, 233 Ga. App. 279, 503 S.E.2d 894 (1998), that a plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim, as well as claims of breach of contract and breach of implied duty o......
-
Anderson v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-cv-4091-TWT-ECS
...interest as a result of the alleged breach of the duty.Bradley Ctr., Inc. v. Wessner, 250 Ga. 199, 200 (1982). See also McMann v. Mockler, 233 Ga. App. 279, 280 (1998). In this case, insofar as Plaintiff predicates his negligence claim upon Defendants' "completely failing to acknowledge, ap......
-
Rollins v. Smith
...claim as alleged encompasses each of the claims she has asserted against the law defendants. See generally McMann v. Mockler , 233 Ga. App. 279, 281-282 (3), 503 S.E.2d 894 (1998) (appellant’s claims against attorney for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty were merely duplicatio......
-
Workers' Compensation - H. Michael Bagley, Daniel C. Kniffen, Katherine D. Dixon, and Marion Handley Martin
...Sec. 34-9-61(b). 163. 236 Ga. App. 1, 510 S.E.2d 868 (1999). 164. Id. at 1, 510 S.E.2d at 869. 165. Id. at 2, 510 S.E.2d at 870. 166. 233 Ga. App. 279, 503 S.E.2d 894 (1998). 167. Id. at 279, 281, 503 S.E.2d at 895, 897. 168. Id. at 279-80, 281, 503 S.E.2d at 895-96, 897. 169. Id. at 282, 5......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - C. Frederick Overby, Jason Crawford, Teresa T. Abell, and Matthew E. Cook
...514 S.E.2d at 839. 68. Id. at 29-30, 514 S.E.2d at 839. 69. Id. at 30, 514 S.E.2d at 839. 70. Id. 71. Id. (quoting McMann v. Mockler, 233 Ga. App. 279, 281, 503 S.E.2d 894 (1998)). 72. Id. at 29-30, 514 S.E.2d at 839. 73. See, e.g., Hospital Auth. of Gwinnett County v. Jones, 259 Ga. 759, 7......