Stiefel v. Schick, S90A0879
| Decision Date | 03 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. S90A0879,S90A0879 |
| Citation | 398 S.E.2d 194,260 Ga. 638 |
| Parties | STIEFEL et al. v. SCHICK et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
R. Matthew Martin, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Atlanta, for Stiefel, et al.
Terrence McQuade, L. James Weil, Jr., Glass, McCullough, Sherrill & Harrold, Atlanta, for Schick, et al.
The plaintiffs-appellants, Stiefel and Freimark, and the defendants-appellees, Schick and Forman, were business partners. Appellants sued the appellees for a declaration that each appellant owned part of the partnership. Appellant Stiefel also filed a claim for fraud. Appellees counterclaimed, inter alia, for compensatory damages for fraud and "punitive" (exemplary) damages. After the trial court directed a verdict against Stiefel on his claim for fraud, the jury returned a verdict finding that appellants had no interest in the partnership. The jury also awarded appellees one dollar in nominal damages and $50,000 in punitive damages. After judgment was entered on the verdict, Stiefel appealed the directed verdict and both appellants appealed the award of punitive damages. 1 We affirm the directed verdict, and reverse the award of punitive damages.
1. The first contention (which is raised only by appellant Stiefel) is that the trial court erred by directing a verdict in favor of the appellees on Stiefel's fraud claim. We find this contention has no merit.
Stiefel based his claim on his contention that appellees obtained his signature on a letter of intent by falsely representing in the letter that the partnership lacked sufficient funds to pay the mortgage on certain real property. 2 We conclude the trial court did not err by granting a directed verdict on this claim. "The tort of fraud has five elements: a false representation by a defendant, scienter, intention to induce the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting, justifiable reliance by plaintiff, and damage to plaintiff." Crawford v. Williams, 258 Ga. 806, 375 S.E.2d 223 (1989). During his testimony Stiefel admitted that more than four years before he filed suit he learned the representation was false. We find any cause of action that may have accrued during the period before he discovered the falsity of the representation is barred by the applicable statute of limitation, OCGA § 9-3-31. Any claim allegedly accruing after he discovered the falsity of the representation fails for lack of justifiable reliance.
2. Both appellants contend that the awards of nominal and punitive damages are improper. We find this enumeration has merit.
Appellees based their counterclaim for fraud on an alleged false representation by appellants in the letter of intent, and appellees based their claim for punitive damages solely upon this alleged fraud. The jury returned a verdict awarding appellees one dollar in damages on their fraud claim and fifty thousand dollars in punitive damages. On appeal, appellants argue that these awards must be set aside because the jury found no actual damages resulting from appellants' alleged fraud.
We agree with appellants. The rule is that an award of nominal damages for fraud is improper, as "[t]o establish a cause of action for fraud, a [party] must show that actual damages, not simply nominal damages, flowed from the fraud alleged." Glynn County Federal Employees Credit Union v. Peagler, 256 Ga. 342, 344(2), 348 S.E.2d 628 (1986). Moreover, a party is not entitled to punitive damages if the party fails to set out a cause of action in tort. Id. (4) at 344-345, 348 S.E.2d 628. Applying these principles to the facts of this case, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Apa Excelsior III, L.P. v. Windley
...to induce plaintiff to act or refrain from acting, justifiable reliance by plaintiff, and damage to plaintiff." Stiefel v. Schick, 260 Ga. 638, 639, 398 S.E.2d 194 (1990).33 Georgia law further provides that "[s]uppression of a material fact which a party is under an obligation to communica......
-
Moore v. McCalla Raymer, LLC
...and damage to plaintiff.’ ” APA Excelsior III, L.P. v. Windley, 329 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1355 (N.D.Ga.2004) (quoting Stiefel v. Schick, 260 Ga. 638, 639, 398 S.E.2d 194, 195 (1990)); accord Sellers v. Bank of America, Nat. Ass'n, 2012 WL 1853005, at *4 (N.D.Ga. May 21, 2012) (“[T]o avoid dismiss......
-
Taylor Morrison Servs., Inc. v. Hdi-Gerling Am. Ins. Co., S13Q0462.
...fraud has five elements, including scienter and intention to induce the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting. Stiefel v. Schick, 260 Ga. 638, 639(1), 398 S.E.2d 194 (1990). Likewise, under California law, the tort of fraud necessarily involves almost identical elements. See Lazar v. Supe......
-
McGowan v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co.
...omitted.) Meeks v. Coan, 165 Ga.App. 731, 733(2), 302 S.E.2d 418 (1983). 33. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Stiefel v. Schick, 260 Ga. 638, 639(2), 398 S.E.2d 194 (1990). 34. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Gaultney v. Windham, 99 Ga.App. 800, 807(3), 109 S.E.2d 914 (1959). 35. See......
-
Holmes v. Grubman
...will not be discussed any further. [19]">[20]"> Holmes v. Grubman, 286 Ga. 636, 637. [20]"> [20]">[21]"> Id., quoting Stiefel v. Schick, 260 Ga. 638, 639, 398 S.E.2d 194 (1990) (internal quotations omitted; emphasis omitted). [21]">[22]"> Id. at 637. [22]"> [22]">[23]"> 286 Ga. at 640-641. ......