Wilson Welding Service v. Partee, A98A1223.
| Decision Date | 15 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. A98A1223.,A98A1223. |
| Citation | 507 S.E.2d 168,234 Ga. App. 619 |
| Parties | WILSON WELDING SERVICE v. PARTEE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Robert P. Wilson, Decatur, for appellant.
Charles M. Partee, pro se.
Wilson Welding Service (Wilson) appeals the determination of damages arising from a default judgment entered in its favor. It contends the court improperly awarded it damages for breach of contract rather than for fraud and that the award should have included punitive damages.
Wilson filed suit against Charles M. Partee on an open account and also claimed Partee was stubbornly litigious. Partee was served but defaulted. Wilson amended its complaint to include a third count for fraud and sought special and punitive damages and attorney fees. Wilson served Partee with the amendment in accordance with OCGA § 9-11-5(b), and again Partee did not respond.
Because Partee was in default, the court held a bench trial solely on the issue of damages at which Partee appeared pro se. At the outset, Wilson announced it was proceeding on Count 3 alone. The court entered judgment awarding Wilson all the special damages it sought together with attorney fees "for having to pursue this debt on a commercial account," and pre-judgment interest. The court also stated
Wilson enumerates three errors: (1) the court improperly based the award on its original claim of open account rather than its fraud claim; (2) it improperly concluded there was insufficient evidence of fraud because in a default the allegations of the complaint are deemed admitted; and (3) it erred by failing to award punitive damages. The fourth enumeration of error is not supported by argument or citation of authority and is deemed abandoned. Court of Appeals Rule 27(c).
The measure of damages in an action for fraud is the actual loss sustained.1 The damages in a fraudulent inducement claim may be similar if not identical to the damages in a breach of contract claim arising out of the same events. It may be inferred from the wording of the findings of fact and conclusions of law and the transcript of the trial that the court awarded the principal, pre-judgment interest and attorney fees as damages for Wilson's tort claim.2 "Assuming... the [findings of fact and conclusions of law were] ambiguous and susceptible of two constructions, one of which would uphold the judgment of the trial court and one which would not, that construction which would uphold both the verdict and judgment is to be applied."3
With regard to punitive damages, it is true that Partee was in default as to the fraud claim. Parties already in default have 30 days from the date a complaint is amended to file an answer before becoming in default on the amendment.4 Further, all well-pled claims including those supporting liability for punitive damages are deemed admitted and supported by evidence, and punitive damages may be awarded in a case of default judgment.5
But the determination of liability for punitive damages and the amount of punitive damages are two separate issues.6 Only liability for punitive damages results from the default; that is, Partee was subject to such an award. The amount of this type of damages is based on the enlightened conscience of the jury, or in this case, the court.7 An award of punitive damages will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is "so excessive or inadequate as to shock the judicial conscience"8 to the degree that a judgment entered thereon constitutes an error of law.
Here the trial court did not find any significant amount of fraud. It was within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Six Flags Over Georgia
...degree that a judgment entered thereon constitutes an error of law." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Wilson Welding Svc. v. Partee, 234 Ga.App. 619, 620, 507 S.E.2d 168 (1998). The $257 million punitive damages award was roughly 1.3 times the $197 million in compensatory damages. Althou......
-
Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Six Flags Over Georgia
...look to see whether the award "shock[s] the judicial conscience." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Wilson Welding Svc. v. Partee, 234 Ga.App. 619, 620, 507 S.E.2d 168 (1998). This test, which has been applied to damages awards based on jury verdicts generally, has a very long history and......
-
Waller v. Rymer
...matter of law by way of their default, leaving only the amount of damages to be determined by the jury. See Wilson Welding Svc. v. Partee, 234 Ga.App. 619, 620, 507 S.E.2d 168 (1998), overruled on other grounds, Shields v. Gish, 280 Ga. 556, 629 S.E.2d 244 (2006). The trial court's failure ......
-
DeYoung v. Ruggerio
...admitted and supported by evidence, and punitive damages may be awarded in a case of default judgment." Wilson Welding Serv. v. Partee, 234 Ga.App. 619, 507 S.E.2d 168, 170 (1998). ¶ 23. Here, plaintiffs' complaint contained the following allegations. When mother hired defendant to obtain e......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - Bruce P. Brown, Jonathan R. Friedman, Michael R. Boorman, and Benjamin J. Vinson
...(2006). 35. See Teamsters Local 515 v. Roadbuilders, Inc. of Tenn., 249 Ga. 418, 291 S.E.2d 698 (1982); Wilson Welding Serv. v. Partee, 234 Ga. App. 619, 507 S.E.2d 168 (1998). 36. Shields, 280 Ga. at 557-58, 629 S.E.2d at 247. 37. O.C.G.A. Sec. 9-11-8(d) (2006). 38. Shields, 280 Ga. at 557......