Schoenbaum Limited Co. v. Lenox Pines, L.L.C

23 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. Morris

    293 Ga. App. 153 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 13 times

    To obtain financing for the Project and other developments, Smith negotiated a personal $350,000 loan (the "Loan") from Howe D. Whitman and Whitman, Whitman Merkle, Inc. ("WWM") in October 1995. Further factual background in this matter may be found in Premier/Ga. Mgmt. Co. v. Realty Mgmt. Corp., 272 Ga. App. 780, 781 (3) ( 613 SE2d 112) (2005), and Schoenbaum Ltd. Co. v. Lenox Pines, LLC, 262 Ga. App. 457 ( 585 SE2d 643) (2003). Both Smith and Whitman and their various affiliated companies were MMM clients. MMM partner Robert E. Saudek was in charge of Whitman's representation, while partner Frank Bazzel was the primary lawyer overseeing Smith's representation.

  2. Sorrow v. 380 Props., LLC

    354 Ga. App. 118 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    "[W]hether [Sorrow] ha[s] acted inequitably is a question of fact not amenable to summary judgment."Schoenbaum Ltd. Co. v. Lenox Pines , 262 Ga. App. 457, 473 (10), 585 S.E.2d 643 (2003).4. Sorrow contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for summary judgment with respect to her easement rights from the rear of her property through to Mecaslin Street.

  3. Taylor v. The Devereux Found.

    316 Ga. 44 (Ga. 2023)   Cited 10 times
    Declining to follow earlier decision where later decision that conflicted properly recited and applied a "bedrock principle"

    Devereux argues that instead of Wingate , we should follow Schoenbaum Ltd. Co., LLC v. Lenox Pines, LLC , 262 Ga. App. 457, 459, 585 S.E.2d 643 (2003), and St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Ross , 276 Ga. App. 135, 142, 622 S.E.2d 374 (2005), in which the Court of Appeals held that the trial court's application of post-judgment interest nunc pro tunc was improper. We disagree.

  4. Tribeca Homes, LLC v. Marathon Investment Corp.

    322 Ga. App. 596 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 10 times

    In this case, on the other hand, no such contract existed between Tribeca and the Land Bank, and even if Marathon had not redeemed the property and even if no other entities applied for 9 Branham Street, Tribeca was not assured of receiving the property. Compare with Schoenbaum Limited Co., LLC v. Lenox Pines, LLC, 262 Ga.App. 457, 471(8)(c), 585 S.E.2d 643 (holding that a question of fact existed as to whether defendants' alleged predicate acts directly injured plaintiff under the parties' real estate development contract after defendants forced plaintiff out of further development of the property)..Id.

  5. Croxton v. Durden

    CV 620-078 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 25, 2021)

    "To have standing to bring a civil claim under Georgia's RICO Act, a plaintiff must not only show a pattern of racketeering activity, but also a 'direct nexus between at least one of the predicate acts listed under the RICO Act and the injury [the plaintiff] purportedly sustained.'" Rosen v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 817 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 1381 (N.D. Ga. 2011) (quoting Schoenbaum Ltd. Co. v. Lenox Pines, LLC, 585 S.E.2d 643, 655 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)). "Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff asserting a RICO claim must allege more than that an act of racketeering occurred and that she was injured. . . . Rather, she must show that her injury was the direct result of a predicate act targeted toward her, such that she was the intended victim."

  6. Saks Mgmt. & Assocs. v. Sung Gen. Contracting

    356 Ga. App. 568 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 6 times

    But under certain circumstances, negligent construction can support the award of punitive damages. See Schoenbaum Ltd. Co., LLC v. Lenox Pines, LLC , 262 Ga. App. 457, 472 (9) (b), 585 S.E.2d 643 (2003). Contrary to Sung General Contracting's argument, it is not entitled to summary judgment on the claim for punitive damages and attorney fees simply because it is entitled to summary judgment on the fraud claim.

  7. Jefferson v. Houston Hosps., Inc.

    336 Ga. App. 478 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 5 times

    (d) In the absence of any cognizable physical, pecuniary, or emotional injury, the trial court properly granted summary judgment on appellants' RICO claims. See, e.g., Schoenbaum Ltd. v. Lenox Pines, LLC, 262 Ga.App. 457, 470(8)(c), 585 S.E.2d 643 (2003) (private RICO plaintiff “must show that one of the predicate acts directly harmed it, not a third party.” (Citations, punctuation, and footnote omitted); Sevcech, supra, 222 Ga.App. at 221–222(1), 474 S.E.2d 4 (RICO requires “motive or effect ... to derive pecuniary gain.”))

  8. Mclarens Young Int'l, Inc. v. Am. Safety Cas. Ins. Co.

    334 Ga. App. 819 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 2 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Id. at 329, 567 S.E.2d 9. See also Schoenbaum Ltd. Co., LLC v. Lenox Pines, LLC, 262 Ga.App. 457, 464–65(4), 585 S.E.2d 643 (2003) (applying Singer to hold contract not assignable whether executory or not if that transfer would materially reduce the value of the contract to the non-assigning party). See supra note 6.

  9. RTT Associates, Inc. v. Georgia Department of Labor

    333 Ga. App. 173 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 4 times

    bject to review by appeal.”); Sotter v. Stephens, 291 Ga. 79, 84, 727 S.E.2d 484 (2012) (“[W]hen a direct appeal is taken, any other judgments, rulings or orders rendered in the case and which may affect the proceedings below may be raised on appeal and reviewed and determined by the appellate court.”) (citation and punctuation omitted); Southeast Ceramics, Inc. v. Klem, 246 Ga. 294, 295, 271 S.E.2d 199 (1980) (“Although the appeal of a grant of a motion for summary judgment is not one of the appeals authorized by [OCGA § 5–6–34(a) ], it is a judgment from which direct appeal can be taken.... [Therefore,] when a direct appeal is taken [from an order granting a motion for summary judgment], any other judgments, rulings or orders rendered in the case and which may affect the proceedings below may be raised on appeal and reviewed and determined by the appellate court.”); Headrick v. Stonepark of Dunwoody Unit Owners Assn., Inc., 331 Ga.App. 772, 774(1)(a), 771 S.E.2d 382 (2015) (accord); Schoenbaum Ltd. v. Lenox Pines, LLC, 262 Ga.App. 457, 458–459(1)(a), 585 S.E.2d 643 (2003) (accord). In this case, RTT alleged that the Department failed to send RTT written notice of its default under the contract and an opportunity to cure the default.

  10. Noons v. Holiday Hosp. Franchising

    307 Ga. App. 351 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 8 times
    Applying the interest rate stated in the contract because O.C.G.A. § 7 4 16 does not apply for breach of contract

    Noons correctly asserts, however, that the method of calculation authorized by OCGA § 7-4-16 is applicable to actions on open account, not for breach of contract. Where, as here, the claim is for breach of contract, OCGA § 7-4-16 does not apply. Schoenbaum Ltd. Co. v. Lenox Pines, 262 Ga. App. 457, 461 (2) (c) ( 585 SE2d 643) (2003). Holiday Inn's entitlement to an award of interest on past due fees is therefore a matter governed by the contract at issue, here "[1.5%] per month or the maximum interest permitted by applicable law, whichever is less."