St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Meeks, S98A1121.

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Citation: 508 S.E.2d 646,270 Ga. 136
• Docket Number: No. S98A1121.,S98A1121.
• Parties: ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE CO. v. MEEKS, et al.
• Decision Date: 09 November 1998

508 S.E.2d 646
270 Ga. 136

ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE CO.
v.
MEEKS, et al

No. S98A1121.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

November 9, 1998.

508 S.E.2d 647

Linda A. Klein, Irwin W. Stolz, Jr., Leo Joseph Fogarty, Seaton D. Purdom, Gambrell & Stolz, LLP, Atlanta, for St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company

Jimmy Jacob Boatright, Alma, for Cona Britt Meeks et al.

HINES, Justice.

St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (St. Paul) appeals the denials of its motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on its claims of unjust enrichment and constructive trust in its suit against A.P. Meeks, Jr. For the reasons that [270 Ga. 137] follow, we affirm.

A.P. Meeks, Jr. is the husband of Cona Meeks, who was employed by Alma Exchange Bank. After certain credit card accounts in her control were discovered to be out of balance, the bank arranged for an independent audit which concluded that Ms. Meeks had embezzled over 372,000.00 between 1988 and 1991. She pled guilty to 273 counts of embezzlement and three counts of income tax evasion. At her plea hearing, Ms. Meeks stated that she embezzled 272,000.00, and restitution was ordered in the amount of 272,838.35.

St. Paul insured the bank against losses from embezzlement and, as the bank's assignee, brought an action against the Meeks to recover the loss. The court granted St. Paul partial summary judgment against Ms. Meeks for 272,000.00, based on her guilty plea. The case was tried on St. Paul's claim for 100,000.00 from Ms. Meeks, the amount it contended was embezzled beyond that for which summary judgment was granted. St. Paul also sought a judgment against Mr. Meeks for unjust enrichment, contending that 138,000.00 of the embezzled funds inured to his benefit, and sought the imposition of a constructive trust. Using a special verdict form, the jury found that Ms. Meeks was not liable to St. Paul for any sum beyond the 272,000 for which the court had already granted summary judgment, and that Mr. Meeks was not liable at all. The court entered judgment on the verdicts.¹

1. St. Paul contends that the evidence demanded the finding that Mr. Meeks was unjustly enriched at the expense of the bank, and hence St. Paul, because the proceeds

508 S.E.2d 648

of his wife's embezzlement were used to pay debts for which Mr. Meeks would otherwise have been liable. However, a directed verdict is appropriate only if there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced,...