Thunderbolt Harbour Phase II Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Ryan
| Decision Date | 27 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. A13A1827.,A13A1827. |
| Citation | 757 S.E.2d 189,326 Ga.App. 580 |
| Parties | THUNDERBOLT HARBOUR PHASE II CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. RYAN. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Friedman, Martin & Stevens, Jeffrey Wayne Lasky, Walter Brian Cornwell, Savannah, James Bradley Stevens, M. Katherine Durant, for Appellant.
Goodman, McGuffey, Lindsey & Johnson, Peter D. Muller, for Appellee.
This construction defects case arises out of the construction of Thunderbolt Harbour Condominium Phase II (“Phase II”), a building comprised of seven adjoining residential waterfront condominium units. The homeowners' association for Phase II, Thunderbolt Harbour Phase II Condominium Association, Inc. (“Phase II HOA”), sued Michael R. Ryan, in his capacity as the officer and director of Phase II HOA, for breach of fiduciary duty for failing to adequately inspect and repair construction defects, maintain adequate insurance coverage, and maintain the building.1 Following a hearing, the trial court granted Ryan's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Georgia law did not recognize a fiduciary duty to turn over common areas of Phase II in good repair. Phase II HOA appeals from that ruling, contending that the trial court erred in concluding that Georgia law does not recognize a breach of fiduciary duty claim against the sole officer and director of a homeowners' association. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
On appeal from the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we conduct a de novo review of the law and evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Holbrook v. Stansell, 254 Ga.App. 553, 553–554, 562 S.E.2d 731 (2002).
So viewed, the evidence shows that in February 2000, Brunson and Bonner, LLC executed a condominium declaration for Thunderbolt Harbour Condominium (the “Declaration”) and it became the developer. The Declaration contemplated the construction of 36 units in four buildings and reserved the option to expand the condominium complex by adding up to seven units on a portion of the subject property. After the original 36 units were at or near completion, Brunson and Bonner elected to exercise its right to expand the condominium complex, and thereafter, transferred its interest in the expansion property, now known as Phase II, along with the right to build Phase II, to Ryan Builders. Ryan Builders served as the developer and general contractor for Phase II, which was constructed between 2001 and 2003.
By the fall of 2003, Ryan Builders completed construction of Phase II. Ryan Builders then filed Articles of Incorporation with the Georgia Secretary of State to form Phase II HOA. Thereafter, on December 5, 2003, the Declaration was amended to provide that Phase II HOA would administer the expansion units of Phase II. That same day, Ryan Builders conveyed the common areas of Phase II, including such things as the building's roof and exterior cladding, to the Phase II HOA.
Between December 2003 and June 2005, Ryan Builders sold all seven of the Phase II units to third-party purchasers, who automatically became members of the Phase II HOA. During that time, Ryan served as the sole officer and director of Phase II HOA. Ryan maintained a package policy of general commercial liability and property insurance for Phase II. He also assessed HOA fees to the condominium owners and deposited those fees into the Phase II HOA back account that he controlled. In July 2006, Ryan transferred control of the Phase II HOA bank account to Phase II HOA.
Between July 2006 and March 2010, there was no further communication between Ryan and Phase II HOA. In March 2010, counsel for Phase II HOA sent a letter to Ryan regarding construction defects at Phase II. After the parties could not come to a resolution, Phase II HOA filed suit against Ryan, alleging that he breached a fiduciary duty as Phase II HOA's sole officer and director by failing to inspect, maintain, repair, and sue subcontractors for construction defects. The trial court found that Ryan had no fiduciary duty to turn over the common areas in good repair, and therefore granted his motion for summary judgment. Phase II HOA appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Ryan.
1. On appeal, Phase II HOA contends that the trial court erred in concluding that Georgia law does not recognize a breach of fiduciary duty claim against the sole officer and director of a homeowners' association. We agree.
A fiduciary or confidential relationship arises
where one party is so situated as to exercise a controlling influence over the will, conduct, and interest of another or where, from a similar relationship of mutual confidence, the law requires the utmost good faith, such as the relationship between partners, principal and agent, etc.
OCGA § 23–2–58. A fiduciary or confidential relationship may be created by law, contract, or the facts of a particular case. See, e.g., Cochran v. Murrah, 235 Ga. 304, 306, 219 S.E.2d 421 (1975); Wright v. Apartment Investment and Mgmt. Co., 315 Ga.App. 587, 592(2)(a), 726 S.E.2d 779 (2012). Generally, the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship is a factual matter for the jury to resolve. Wright, supra, 315 Ga.App. at 592(2)(a), 726 S.E.2d 779. Moreover,
[a] corporate officer or director owes to the corporation and its stockholders a fiduciary or quasi-fiduciary duty, which requires that they act in utmost good faith. Directors and officers in the management and use of corporate property in which they act as fiduciaries and are trustees are charged with serving the interests of the corporation as well as the stockholders.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Enchanted Valley RV Park Resort, Ltd. v. Weese, 241 Ga.App. 415, 423(5), 526 S.E.2d 124 (1999).
In this case, Phase II HOA alleged construction defects to Phase II HOA property, including defects in the building's roof and exterior cladding. The evidence showed that Ryan was the sole officer and director of Phase II HOA from its inception until July 2006, when he handed over control of the Phase II HOA bank account. Consequently, a jury could find that “[i]t fell within [Ryan's] fiduciary duties as a corporate officer to protect corporate property.” (Citation omitted.) Clarence L. Martin, P.C. v. Chatham County Tax Commr., 258 Ga.App. 349, 351, 574 S.E.2d 407 (2002).
Moreover, since Ryan was given the authority to act on behalf of Phase II HOA, such as selecting insurance coverage for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gault v. Thacher
...and even sometimes majority shareholders owe a fiduciary duty to its shareholders. See, e.g., Thunderbolt Harbour Phase II Condo. Assn., Inc. v. Ryan, 326 Ga.App. 580, 757 S.E.2d 189, 191 (2014). However, Gault cites to only one case which purports that "[t]here is also a fiduciary relation......
-
Sawyer v. Thompson (In re Thompson)
...are charged with serving the interests of the corporation as well as the stockholders.Thunderbolt Harbour Phase II Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Ryan, 326 Ga. App. 580, 582, 757 S.E.2d 189, 191 (2014)(internal citation and punctuation omitted), quoting Enchanted Valley RV Park Resort, Ltd. v. Weese......
-
Gault v. Jane Vaden Thacher, Vaden of Beaufort Inc.
...majorityPage 20 shareholders owe a fiduciary duty to its shareholders. See, e.g., Thunderbolt Harbour Phase II Condo. Assn, Inc. v. Ryan, 757 S.E.2d 189, 191 (Ga. App. 2014). However, Gault cites to only one case which purports that "[t]here is also a fiduciary relationship between the corp......
-
Headrick v. Stonepark of Dunwoody Unit Owners Ass'n, Inc.
...owners, application of the right-for-any-reason rule is not appropriate. Id.; see also Thunderbolt Harbour Phase II Condo. Assn. v. Ryan, 326 Ga.App. 580, 583(2)(a), 757 S.E.2d 189 (2014) (where defendant did not raise alternative argument for summary judgment in trial court, this Court cou......
-
What Duty of Care Does a Homeowner Association Owe Its Members?
...897, 740 S.E.2d 816 (2013). [] Id. at 899–900, 740 S.E.2d at 818. [] Id. at 898, 740 S.E.2d at 818. [] Id. at 900, 740 S.E.2d at 818. [] 326 Ga. App. 580, 757 S.E.2d 189 (2014). [] Id. at 580, 757 S.E.2d at 190. [] Id. at 582–83, 757 S.E.2d at 191. Note that while Hall cites Bailey for esta......
-
2014 Georgia Corporation and Business Organization Case Law Developments
...were two notable decisions involving nonprofit corporations in 2014. In Thunderbolt Harbour Phase II Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Ryan, 326 Ga. App. 580, 757 S.E.2d 189 (2014), the Court of Appeals held that a homeowners' association's sole director and officer owed fiduciary duties to the a......
-
Construction Law
...2014 Ga. LEXIS 163 (Feb. 24, 2014); Holder Constr. Co. v. Estate of Pitts, No. S13C1732, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 161 (Feb. 24, 2014).60. 326 Ga. App. 580, 757 S.E.2d 189 (2014). 61. Id. at 580, 581, 757 S.E.2d at 190.62. Id. at 580, 757 S.E.2d at 190.63. Id.64. Id. at 582, 757 S.E.2d at 191.65. Id.6......
-
Owner Association Board Member Duties and Liabilities—part 2
...Residential Ass'n v. 2200 M Street LLC, 952 F.Supp.2d 234 (D.D.C. 2013). [19] Thunderbolt Harbour Phase II Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Ryan, 757 S.E.2d 189 (Ga.App. 2014). See also Clarence L. Martin, PC v. Chatham County Tax Commr, 574 S.E.2d 407, 409 (Ga.App. 2002) (in construction defect suit,......