South Point Retail Partners v. North Am. Properties Atlanta, A10A1350.
Decision Date | 11 June 2010 |
Docket Number | No. A10A1350.,A10A1350. |
Citation | 696 S.E.2d 136,304 Ga.App. 419 |
Parties | SOUTH POINT RETAIL PARTNERS, LLCv.NORTH AMERICAN PROPERTIES ATLANTA, LTD. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin, James L. Paul, for Appellant.
Arnall, Golden & Gregory, Edward A. Marshall, Heather S. Michael, Atlanta, for Appellee.
This dispute arises from an agreement between South Point Retail Partners, LLC, and North American Properties Atlanta, Ltd. (“NAP”). NAP filed a claim with the American Arbitration Association, alleging that South Point breached the agreement by failing to make certain payments when due. South Point then filed this action in the Superior Court of Fulton County, seeking a judgment declaring that the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement does not encompass NAP's claim and seeking to enjoin the arbitration pending adjudication of South Point's declaratory judgment action. The trial court denied South Point's motion for an injunction and granted NAP's motion to dismiss South Point's declaratory judgment action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. South Point appeals, contending that the trial court misconstrued the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement and, consequently, erred in granting NAP's motion to dismiss. For the reasons explained below, we reverse.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Johnson v. Bd. of Commrs., etc., 302 Ga.App. 266, 690 S.E.2d 912 (2010).
For the purpose of evaluating NAP's motion to dismiss, we assume that South Point can prove the following facts as averred in its complaint. See Johnson v. Bd. of Commrs., etc., 302 Ga.App. at 266, 690 S.E.2d 912. In 2005, investors organized South Point to develop a shopping center in McDonough. South Point and NAP entered a “pre-development” agreement under which NAP provided certain services to South Point, including applying for rezoning and negotiating with certain anchor retailers.
In September 2006, the parties entered into a new agreement under which South Point retained NAP to provide consulting and marketing services to South Point in connection with the shopping center. In Paragraph 1, the parties specified the hourly rate for NAP's consulting services and the commission that South Point would pay NAP for procuring a buyer or lessee for any outparcel.
In the consulting and marketing agreement, South Point and NAP also expressly terminated the pre-development agreement. In Paragraph 3, the parties agreed that South Point would “reimburse [NAP] the NAP Pre-Development Costs as defined in the Pre-Development Agreement.” NAP acknowledged that it had already received “$442,240.00 or thirty percent of the NAP Pre-Development costs.” South Point agreed to pay NAP “$1,031,089.00, or the remaining seventy percent of the NAP Pre-Development Costs” in installments, “if, as and when” South Point received installment payments from the anchor retailers.
Paragraph 5(a) of the consulting and marketing agreement set out the conditions and process for early termination of the agreement. Paragraph 5(b) provided as follows:
In the claim NAP filed with the American Arbitration Association, NAP alleged that South Point breached Paragraph 3 of the consulting and marketing agreement by paying only $106,441.35 of the total it owed NAP for its pre-development costs and failing to pay the remaining $924,647.65 due. The trial court determined that the parties had agreed “to arbitrate all disputes between them as to the ‘total compensation’ owed to [NAP], and that the claims raised in [NAP's] Demand for Arbitration clearly fall within that arbitration clause.” Based on that construction of the agreement, the trial court denied South Point's motion for an interlocutory injunction and dismissed South Point's complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
1. South Point contends that the trial court erred in determining as a matter of law that the arbitration clause applies to NAP's claim and, therefore, erred in granting NAP's motion to dismiss.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Yates v. CACV of Colorado, 303 Ga.App. 425, 430(1), 693 S.E.2d 629 (2010). The construction of an arbitration clause in a contract is subject to the ordinary rules of contract construction. Tillman Park v. Dabbs-Williams Gen. Contractors, 298 Ga.App. 27, 29, 679 S.E.2d 67 (2009). (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Id. First, the court determines whether the contract is ambiguous. Id.; Azzouz v. Prime Pediatrics, 296 Ga.App. 602, 604(1)(a), 675 S.E.2d 314 (2009). A contract is ambiguous when the language used may be fairly understood in more ways than one. Azzouz v. Prime Pediatrics, 296 Ga.App. at 604(1)(a), 675 S.E.2d 314; Western Pacific Mut. Ins., Co. v. Davies, 267 Ga.App. 675, 680(1), 601 S.E.2d 363 (2004). If the language of a contract is plain, unambiguous, and capable of only one reasonable interpretation, no construction is required or even permissible, and the trial court enforces the contract according to its literal meaning. Tillman Park v. Dabbs-Williams Gen. Contractors, 298 Ga.App. at 29, 679 S.E.2d 67; Quality Foods v. Smithberg, 288 Ga.App. 47, 51(1), 653 S.E.2d 486 (2007).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phx. Corp. Recovery Servs. v. Astrachan (In re Beaulieu Grp.)
... ... Solutions' operations in the North American Market, next ... to its new … ... conducted business with Beaulieu: South Richmond Chemicals, ... LLC, Pinnacle ... Company, Inc., Centaur Properties, LLC, Centaur Marketing ... Group, LLC, ... and finding no Georgia cases on point, the Court concludes ... that managers ... See S. Point Retail ... Partners, LLC v. N. Am. Properties ... ...
-
Marshall v. Mcintosh Cnty. Marshall, s. A14A0639
...we review de novo the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss a complaint. South Point Retail Partners, LLC v. North American Properties Atlanta, Ltd., 304 Ga.App. 419, 420, 696 S.E.2d 136 (2010). We construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, with all doubts res......
-
City of Atlanta v. Automation
...defendants.” On appeal, we review the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. South Point Retail Partners, LLC v. North American Properties Atlanta, 304 Ga.App. 419, 696 S.E.2d 136 (2010).3 A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted should ......
-
Summerville v. Innovative Images, LLC
...is to ascertain the intention of the parties." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) South Point Retail Partners v. North American Properties Atlanta , 304 Ga. App. 419, 421 (1), 696 S.E.2d 136 (2010). "It is well settled that when the terms of a written contract are clear and unambiguous, t......
-
Construction Law - Frank O. Brown, Jr.
...309 Ga. App. 712, 711 S.E.2d 71 (2011). 113. 308 Ga. App. 680, 708 S.E.2d 619 (2011). 114. 305 Ga. App. 863, 700 S.E.2d 609 (2010). 115. 304 Ga. App. 419, 696 S.E.2d 136 (2010). trine);116 HNTB Georgia, Inc. v. Hamilton King (expert testimony);117 and Electric Works CMA, Inc. v. Baldwin Tec......