Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Austin v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-04-27 · cited 9×
John Austin II pled guilty to felony theft by taking and received a probated sentence that included an order to pay restitution for unrecovered items including a pistol and coin collection. After a hearing, the trial court set restitution at $20,500 based on the victim's testimony about replacement cost for the pistol and a $20,000–$30,000 range for the coins. Austin appealed, arguing the amount lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The Court of Appeals vacated the order and remanded the case, holding that restitution must reflect fair market value rather than replacement cost and that the victim's testimony failed to provide a fact-based foundation—such as details on age, condition, or comparable sales—for determining that value under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
criminal lawproperty
In Re Ar
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-30
The case involved a mother's appeal of a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her two young children after they were removed from her care in 2008 due to neglect, lack of supervision, and her financial inability to provide for them. The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the termination, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court's findings by clear and convincing evidence. The court reasoned that the mother had failed to complete key reunification case plan goals—such as maintaining stable income and housing for six consecutive months, cooperating with a parent aide, attending visits consistently, and addressing mental health issues—despite having consented to an initial deprivation order and participating in plan development. It further found that the causes of deprivation were likely to continue, given the mother's pattern of instability, including moving out of state without notice and missing visits, and that termination was in the children's best interests. The appellate court deferred to the juvenile court's factual findings and credibility determinations without reweighing the evidence.
family law
Casualty v. Woodcraft by MacDonald, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-29 · cited 2×
In this case, Georgia Casualty paid out policy limits to Coachcraft and others after a 2004 gas explosion, then sued Atmos in subrogation to recover those amounts; Coachcraft and MacDonald intervened and later sued Georgia Casualty, alleging breach of the insurance policy and bad faith for settling the subrogation claims without first ensuring the insureds were made whole for their excess losses. The trial court granted Georgia Casualty summary judgment on the bad faith claim but denied it on the breach claim. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that Georgia Casualty was entitled to summary judgment on both claims. The court reasoned that the made-whole doctrine did not bar the insurer’s contractual subrogation rights once it had fully paid the available policy limits, the insureds had been given the chance to pursue their remaining claims separately against Atmos, and the settlement did not inequitably compete with or prejudice those claims.
business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure
Ridley v. SOVEREIGN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-28
This case arose from the end of Sheila Ridley’s employment and consulting relationship with Sovereign Solutions, LLC (and its affiliate), governed by a Separation and Services Agreement that allowed either party to terminate with 30 days’ notice; after termination, Sovereign sued Ridley for unpaid equipment lease payments and alleged loan advances, while Ridley counterclaimed for defamation and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court struck most of Ridley’s affidavit, refused to consider a late third-party affidavit, granted Sovereign summary judgment on all claims, and denied Ridley’s cross-motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that Ridley had waived any challenge to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings by failing to enumerate error or present argument on the motion to strike, leaving only limited affidavit paragraphs for review, but that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on at least one of Sovereign’s claims and required further proceedings on Ridley’s counterclaims.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure
Huggins v. Powell
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-28 · cited 8×
Dorothy Huggins, as administrator of Vernon Powell’s estate, sued multiple defendants including the Hilltop entities, J & A Group, and Calloway Title & Escrow, alleging that Powell’s heirs had fraudulently conveyed the decedent’s 20 percent interest in real property after his 1996 death and seeking recovery of the property to satisfy estate debts and her lien. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Hilltop defendants on statute-of-limitations grounds, granted summary judgment to the J & A defendants for insufficient evidence, and denied Calloway’s motion because of deemed admissions. On appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the J & A defendants on the fraudulent-conveyance claims because the evidence did not show a fraudulent transfer, affirmed summary judgment for the Hilltop defendants because the four-year limitations period under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act had expired, reversed the denial of summary judgment to Calloway on the same limitations ground, and reversed summary judgment on Huggins’s separate individual levy claim because that issue presented a jury question.
propertyprocedure
McCrary v. Middle Georgia Management Services, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-28 · cited 3×
Middle Georgia Management Services (MGM) sued Brandy McCrary, seeking a constructive trust over life insurance proceeds paid to her as beneficiary after her mother, Barbara Morris—an MGM employee—embezzled nearly $2 million and then died by suicide following an internal inquiry. McCrary countersued for wrongful death and attorney fees. The trial court denied McCrary summary judgment on MGM’s claim but granted MGM summary judgment on the counterclaim; on appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the first ruling and affirmed the second. The court held that OCGA § 33-25-11 shields life-insurance proceeds for a designated beneficiary from creditors unless the policy was assigned to the creditor or purchased with intent to defraud that creditor—neither of which occurred here—so MGM could not impose a trust. On the counterclaim, MGM was not liable for wrongful death because the regional manager’s interview and Turner’s personal accusation were not the proximate cause of the suicide and were not attributable to MGM within the scope of employment.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability