THI RD DI VI SI ON

DI LLA R D, C. J.

, GOBEI L and HODGES, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

June 14, 2019



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 9 A0 32 9 . EARLS. v . ANEKE et al

.

D I LLA R D , Ch i ef J u d g e.

A n t h o n y E arl s ap p eal s fro m th e t ri al co u rt ’ s g ran t o f s u m m ary ju d g m en t t o

Pri n cewi l l An ek e, i n d iv i d u al l y

, an d A n ek e L aw Offi c e s

, L L C

, as an as s i g n ee o f

Pri n cewi l l O. An e k e

, LLC, n o w k n o wn as Su n s h i n e Real Es tat e Pro p ert i es I, LLC

(co l l ect i v el y

, “ An ek e”). Earl s arg u es

, i nt er a l i a

, t hat th e t ri al co u rt erred by d en y i n g

h i s m ot i o n fo r s u m

m ary ju d g m en t b as ed on a m i sch ara c t e r i z a t i on o f h i s arg u m en t s

an d

, acco r d i n g l y

, fai l i n g t o ad ju d i cat e t h e arg u m en t s u n d erl y i n g h i s m o t i o n fo r

s u m m ary ju d g m en t

. Becau s e w e ag ree wi t h Earl s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt fai l ed t o p ro p erl y

co n s i d e r h i s p ri m ary arg u m en t i n fav o r of s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, we v acat e t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s o rd er an d rem an d fo r t he reas o n s s et fo rt h i n f r a

.Vi ewed i n t h e l ig h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o Earl s ( i .e.

, t h e n o n m o v i n g p art y)

, 1 t h e

reco rd sh o w s t h at Earl s an d h i s wi fe were i n v ol v ed i n an au t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t in

M arch 2 0 1 5 wh en t h e b i g -ri g t ru ck h i s wi fe was dri v i n g fo r h er em p lo y er was s t ru ck

b y an o t h er co m

m erci al v eh i cl e. Earl s s us t ai n ed m ul t i p l e i n ju ri es i n th e acci d en t

,

res u l ti n g i n s i g ni fi can t m ed i cal ex p en s es

. 2 Sh o rt l y aft er t h e co l l is i o n

, Earl s was t ak en

b y a fri en d t o a ch i ro p ract o r’ s offi ce, wh ere h e m et Po rt i a Ro l l an d

, a p aral eg al fro m

a l o cal l aw fi rm

. Du ri n g hi s m eet in g wi t h Ro l l an d

, Earl s s i g n e d an at t o rn ey -cl i en t

co n tract

. Th e v al i d it y

o f t hi s ag reem en t i s at t h e h eart o f t h e p art i es ’ d is p u t e.

Th e ag reem en t p ro v i d ed t h at E a r l s h i red “ Pri ncewi l l An ek e o f Pri n cewi l l O.

An ek e, L.L.C. (‘ THE FIRM ’ ), as m y at t o rn ey

, t o rep res en t m e ag ai n s t al l p ers o n s o r

en t i t i es fo r t he i n

ju ri es I s u s t ai n ed o n

, o r ab o u t t h e 3 0 th d ay o f M arch

, 20 1 5 ,” an d

fu rt her p ro v id ed as fo l l o ws :

I ag ree t o p ay t h e Fi rm t h i rt y -t h ree (3 3 1 / 3%) p ercen t of t he g ro s s

reco very m ad e fo r m e i n t h e ev en t su ch reco very i s o bt ai n ed wi t h o ut th e

n ece s s i t y o f fi l i n g a laws u i t o r u ti l i zi n g m ed i at i o n

, arb i t rat i o n or o t h er

al t ern at i v e di s pu t e res o l u t i o n s

. Sh o u ld m y reco v ery o ccu r aft er a l aws u i t

1 S ee, e.g

. , S t a n l ey v. Go v’t Emp l o yees In s

. Co

. , 3 4 4 Ga

. A p p

. 34 2

, 3 4 2 (8 1 0

SE2 d 1 7 9) (2 0 1 8).

2 Earl s ’ s w i fe w as al s o i n ju red i n t h e acci d en t

, bu t s h e i s n o t a p art y t o t h i s

ap p eal

.

2i s fi l ed

, o r m ed iat i o n o r arb i t rat i o n h e l d

, t h en I ag ree t o pay t h e Fi rm

fo rt y (4 0 %) p ercen t o f t h e g ro s s reco v ery

.

Th e ag reem en t al s o p ro v i d ed t h at

Cl i en t m ay d i s m is s t h e Fi rm at an y t i m e, up o n wri t t en n o ti ce t o t h e Fi rm

.

Cl i en t ag rees th at s ho u l d t h ey d i s m is s th e Fi rm fro m rep res en t i n g th em

i n t h ei r cl ai m h erei n

, Cl i en t wo ul d re m a i n l i a b l e t o th e Fi rm

, an d

h erewi t h i rrev o cab l y as s ig n t o t he Fi rm

, t h e ap p l i cab l e p ercen t ag e o f fee

d u e th e Fi rm u nd er t h i s Ag reem en t of t h e h i g h es t o ffer t h at was m ad e b y

an y ad v ers ary o r co l l at eral part y d uri n g t h e Fi rm ’ s em p lo y m en t b y

Cl i en t

. In t h e ev en t n o o ffer h as b een m ad e, Cl i en t ag rees t o p ay [F] i rm

at t o rn ey fees fo r t h e ti m e fi rm

h as ex pen d ed wo rk in g o n Cl i en t ’ s cas e,

t o b e as ses s ed at t h e rat e o f o ne h u n d red fi ft y d o l lars p er h o u r.

Th e ag reem en t was s i g n ed b y Earl s an d Ro l l an d o n b eh al f o f t h e fi rm

. Ro l l an d

was em p lo y ed b y t h e fi rm as an i n d ep en d en t co n t ract o r p aral eg al

, an d t h e t erm s o f

h er ag reem en t wi th t h e fi rm s p eci fi ed t h at

, as p art o f t h e s erv ices s h e w o u l d p ro v i de,

s h e w o ul d “ [a] ct as an ag en t o f t h e l aw f i r m i n r e s p e ct to d eal i n g wi t h p ro s p ect i v e

n ew cl i en t s [.] ” As p art o f t h e s co p e o f h er ag en cy

, Ro l l an d was p erm i t t ed t o “ [e] n t er

i n t o b i n d i n g ag reem en t s o n b eh al f o f t he l aw fi rm b y s i g n in g co n t ract s b et w een t h e

l aw fi rm an d cl i en t s wh o hav e ag reed t o ret ai n t he s erv i ces o f t h e l aw fi rm .”

3On M arch 2 0

, 2 0 1 6

, An ek e recei v ed i n w ri t i n g an o ffer t o s et t le Earl s ’ s cl ai m

fo r $ 5 0 0,0 0 0

, an d Earl s was t h en p res en t ed wi t h t h i s offer. Aro u nd t h i s s am e t i m e,

Earl s b ecam e d i s s at i sfi ed wi t h t h e rep res en t at i o n h e was recei v i n g fro m An ek e, an d

o n M ay 1 7

, 2 0 1 6

, Earl s n o t i fi ed An ek e i n wri t i n g

, t h ro u g h h i s n e w c o u n s el

, t h at

An ek e’ s s erv i ces w ere t erm i n at ed

, effect i v e i m m ed i at el y

. Th en

, ju s t t h ree d ay s aft er

s en d in g t h i s t er m i n a t i o n n ot i ce vi a h i s n ew co un s el

, E arl s recei v ed an u p d at ed

s et t l em en t o ffer of t h e d efen d i n g in s uran ce ag en cy ’ s rem ai n i n g p o l i cy l i m i t s

, an d h e

u l t i m at el y

recei v ed a s et t l em en t ch eck fo r $ 6 6 2 ,3 8 0 .9 9

.

In M arch 2 0 1 7

, A nek e fi l ed s u i t ag ai n s t Earl s fo r b reach o f co n t ract

, q u an t u m

m e r u i t

, 3 an d seek i n g at t orn ey fees an d co s t s o f l i t i g at i on u n d er OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1

. 4

Earl s an swered

, as sert i n g as h i s d efen s es t h at

, i n t er a l i a

, h e was n ot l i ab le t o An ek e

b ecau s e “ n o co n t ract fo r l eg al s erv i ces ev er ex i s t ed s i n ce n ei th er th e i n d i v i d u al

Pl ai n t i ff n o r an y m em

b er o f ei th er o f t h e n am ed li m i t ed l i ab i l i t y co m p an i es s i g n ed t h e

3 An ek e p l ead ed q u an t um m e r u i t i n t h e al t ern at i v e, an d Earl s h as n ev er

co n tes t ed t h at An ek e m ay b e en t i t led t o rel i ef o n t h is g ro u n d

.

4 S ee OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1 (“ Th e ex p en ses o f li t i g at io n gen eral l y s h al l n o t b e

al l o wed as a part o f t h e d am ag es ; b ut wh ere t h e p lai n t i ff h as s peci al l y p l ead ed an d h as

m ad e p ray er t h erefo r an d wh ere t h e d efen d an t h as act ed i n b a d f a i t h

, h as b een

s t ub b o rn ly l it i g i o us

, o r h as cau s ed t he p l ai n t i ff u nn eces s ary t ro u b l e an d ex p en s e, t h e

ju ry m ay al l o w t h em .”).

4p u rp ort ed co n t ract t h at i s t h e s u b ject o f th i s l i ti g at i o n ” an d “ t h e s ub ject co n t ract was

n ev er effect u at ed b y an i n d iv i d u al or fi rm l i cen s ed an d au t h o ri zed t o pract ice l aw in

Geo rg i a.”

An ek e fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t i n M ay 2 0 18

, arg u i n g t h at t h e

ag reem en t s ig n ed b y Earl s w as b i n d i n g an d v al i d

, o b l ig at in g Earl s t o perfo rm u n d er

i t s t erm s ; t h at t h e co n t ract w as s i g n ed b y Ro l l an d as an ag en t fo r t h e fi rm

, an d t h at

s h e h ad ap paren t an d act u al au t h o ri t y t o bi nd t he fi rm t o a co n t ract ; an d t hat An ek e’ s

n ew law fi rm

, An ek e Law Offi ces , LLC, was t h e s u cces s o r i n i n teres t t o t h e fo rm er

Pri n cewi l l O. An ek e, LLC.

In res p o n s e t o An ek e’ s m o t i o n

, Earl s arg u ed t h at th e ag reem en t b et ween t h e

p art i es co u l d n o t h av e b een v al i d o r b i n d i n g b ecau se t h e fo rm er fi rm was i n cap ab l e

o f p erfo rm i n g l eg al s erv ices

, as “ i t had no t b een fo rm ed an d d es i g n a t ed as a

p ro fes s i on al co rp orat i o n

, an d h en ce n ev er ex is t ed at an y t i m e, i n cl u d i n g t h e d at e o f

s i gn i n g o f t h e s u b

ject co n t ract

, as a p ro fes s io n al co rp o rat i o n t h at was au t h o ri zed to

p ract i ce l aw i n G eo rg ia.” Th en

, i n Ju n e 2 0 1 8, Earl s fi l ed h is own m o t io n fo r s u m m ary

ju d g m en t

, ag ai n arg u in g t h at Pri n cewi l l O. A n ek e, LLC, an d i t s s u cces s o r fo l l o wi n g

a n am e ch an g e, Su ns h i n e Real Es t at e Pro p ert i es I, LLC, were n ot p r o fes s i o n al

co rp o rat i o ns fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f p ract i ci ng l aw.

5In res po n s e to Earl s ’ s m o t i o n f o r s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, An ek e arg u ed t h at

Ro l lan d s i g n ed t h e co n t ract at is s u e o n b eh al f o f Pri n cewi l l O. An ek e, LLC, an d h ad

act u al au t h o ri t y t o do s o

, a n d t h a t h i s fo rm er l aw fi rm

, Pri n cewi l l O. An ek e, LLC,

p ro p erl y en t ered i nt o t h e ag reem en t

. An ek e al s o as s ert ed t hat

, o n t h e d ay aft er Earl s

recei v ed t h e $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 o ffer o f s et t l em en t

, he res t ru ct u red hi s l aw p ract i ce an d o t h er

b u s i n es s es b y in co rp o rat i n g An ek e Leg al Serv i ces

, L LC, i n o rd er t o co n t i n u e t h e

o p erat i o n o f h i s law p ract ice aft er ch an g i n g t h e n am e o f Pri n cewi ll O. A n ek e, LLC,

t o Su n s h i n e Real Es tat e Pro p ert i es I, LLC. Th en

, A n ek e i nco rp o rat ed An ek e Law

Offi ces

, LLC, t o u s e i n l i eu o f An ek e Leg al Serv i ces , LLC.

In res p o n se t o An ek e’ s o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e cro s s-m ot i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t

,

Earl s arg u ed th at becau s e An ek e’ s fo rm er l aw fi rm

, Pri n cewi l l O. A n ek e, L LC, was

a l i m i ted l i ab i l i t y co m

p an y

, an d n o t a p ro fes s i on al co rp orat i o n

, Earl s co u l d n o t en t er

i n t o a b i n d i n g co n t ract wi t h t h e f i r m fo r t h e p ro v i s i o n o f l e g a l s erv i ces b ecau s e t h e

fi rm i t s el f, as an LLC, co u l d n o t p ro vi d e l eg al serv i ces

. T h u s

, b ecau s e o n l y An ek e

was a l i cen s ed at t orn ey

, i n o r d e r f o r t h e co n t ract t o b e v al i d

, i t n eed ed to b e s i g n ed

b y An ek e an d n o t b y

Ro l l an d

.

Fo l l owi n g a h eari n g o n t h e co m p et i n g m o ti o n s, t h e t ri al co u rt i ss u ed an o rd er

o n J u l y 2 4, 2 0 1 8

. Fi rs t

, t h e tri al co u rt ex p l ai n ed i t s u n d ers t an d i n g t o be t hat E arl s was

6arg u i n g (1 ) “ Ro l l an d d id n o t h av e au t h o ri t y t o en t er i n t o t h e co n t ract fo r t h e Fi rm

, an d

t h at t h e co n tr a c t i s t h erefo re n u l l an d vo i d” an d (2 ) t h at t h e fi rm an d i t s s u cces s o r

as s i g n ees co u l d no t p ract i ce l aw b ecau s e t hey were no t in co rp orat ed as p ro fes s i o n al

co rp o rat i o ns

. Th e co u rt t h en co n cl u ded t h at Ro l l an d h ad au t h o ri t y to s i gn o n b eh al f

o f t h e l aw fi rm an d en t ered i nt o a b i n d i n g co n t ract as i ts ag en t

, an d d en i ed s u m m ary

ju d g m en t t o Earl s an d g ran ted s u m m ary ju d g m en t t o A n ek e on t h at b as i s

. Th en

, t h e

co u rt co n cl u ded t h at b ecau se A n ek e was a l i cen s ed at t o rn ey i n go o d s t an d i ng

, h e was

p erm i t t ed t o p ract ice l aw wi t h a fi rm i n t h e fo rm o f a l i m i t ed li ab il i ty co m p an y

, an d

i t d en i ed Earl s ’ s m o t io n o n t h i s g ro u n d

. Th e co u rt al s o d en i ed E arl s ’ s m ot i o n o n t h e

g ro u nd t hat t h is Co urt h as “ ex p res sl y ap pro v ed at t orn ey -cl i en t co n t ract s co n t ai n i n g

p ro v is i o n s al m o s t ex act l y l ik e” t h e p a rag rap h at i s s u e, an d i t d en i ed s u m m ary

ju d g m e n t t o Earl s o n t h at g ro u n d as wel l. Ul t i m at el y

, t h e co u rt d ecl ared t h at i t was

d en y i n g Earl s ’ s m ot i o n

, g ran t i n g An ek e’ s m o t i o n

, an d award i ng a ju d g m en t t o An ek e

i n t h e a m o u n t o f t h e req u es t ed $ 1 6 6 ,6 66 .6 6

, p l u s co u rt co s ts

. T hi s ap p eal b y Earl s

fo l l o w s

.

Su m m ary j u d gm en t i s p ro p er i f “ t h e p l ead in g s

, d ep o s i t i o n s, an s w e r s t o

i n t erro g at o ri es

, an d ad m i s s io ns o n fi l e, t o g et her wi t h t h e affi d av i ts

, i f an y

, sh o w t h at

t h ere i s no g en u in e i s s ue as t o an y m at eri al fact an d t h at t he m ov i n g p art y i s en t i t l ed

7t o a ju d g m en t as a m at t er o f l aw.” 5 An d wh en s u m m ary ju d g m en t i s g ran t ed

, t h e o rd er

“ en jo y s no pres u m

p t i on o f co rrect n es s o n ap p e al

, an d i t i s o u r res p o n s i b i l i t y to

d et erm i n e i f t h e req u i rem en t s o f OCGA § 9-1 1 -5 6 (c) h av e b een sat i sfi ed .” 6 In o t h er

wo rd s

, i n co n d uct i n g th i s d e n ovo rev i ew, we are “ ch arg ed wi t h v i ewi ng t h e ev i d en ce,

a n d al l reas o n ab l e co n cl us i on s an d i n feren ces d rawn fro m t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e l i g h t

m o st fav orab l e t o t h e no n m o v an t .” 7 W i th t h es e g u id i ng p ri n ci pl es i n m i nd

, we t u rn

n o w t o Earl s ’ s en u m erat i o n s o f erro r.

1

. Fi rs t, i n s ep arat e b u t rel at ed en u m erat i o n s o f erro r, Earl s co n t en d s t h at t h e

t ri al co u rt erred i n d en y i n g h i s m o t i on fo r s u m m ary j u d gm en t w h en i t

m i s ch aract eri zed o r m i s u n d ers t o o d h i s co n t en t i on s reg ard i n g PCs an d LLCs

, an d,

acco r d i n g l y, fai l ed t o ad

ju d i cat e t h o s e arg u m en t s

. W e ag ree t h at t h e co u rt d i d n ot

fu l l y g ras p wh at Earl s arg u ed as t o PCs an d LLCs

, an d b ecau s e th e t ri al co u rt d i d n ot

r u l e u p o n t h is q ues t i on

, we v acat e an d rem an d fo r th e co urt ’ s co n si d erat io n o f t h i s

arg u m en t i n t h e fi rs t i n s t an ce.

5 S t a n l ey , 3 44 Ga. Ap p . at 3 4 3 (p u n ct u at i o n o m i tt ed ).

6 Id

.

7 Id

. (p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ).

8Earl s m ai n t ai n s t h e tri al co u rt erro n eo u s l y co n cl u d ed t h at h e arg ued “ at t o rn ey s

a r e p ro hi b i t ed fro m t h e p ract i ce o f l aw i n t h e fo rm o f a Li m it ed Li ab i l it y Co m p a n y

(al t h ou g h h i s o wn fi rm i s org an i zed as s am e),” an d u l t i m at el y ru l ed t h at t h e l aw d o es

n o t p ro h i b i t s am e. Bu t i n s t ead

, wh at Earl s arg ued i s t hat “ a l i m i t ed l i ab i l i t y co m p an y

,

i t sel f, m ay no t p ract ice law u n l es s it i s o rg an i zed u nd er t h e Pro fes s io n al Co rp o rat i on s

Act

. . . o r t h e Pro fes s i o n al As s o ci at i o n s Act (req u i ri n g t wo o r m o re m em b ers .” Earl s

as s ert s t hat P r i n c ewi l l O. An ek e, LLC w as n ev er reg i s t ered un d er th e Pro fes s i o n al

Co rp o rat i o n s Act

. As a res u lt

, Earl s arg u es t h at An ek e h i ms el f

— t h e o nl y l i cen s ed

at t o rn ey wh o pract i ced as Pri n cewi l l O. An ek e, L L C— wa s req u i red t o s i g n t h e

at t o rn ey -cl i en t co n t ract at i s s ue, wh i ch was i n s t ead s i g n ed b y a l ay p ers o n op erat i n g

as an i n d ep en den t co nt ract o r ag en t o r em p lo y ee o f t h e fi rm

.

Th e t ri al co u rt n ev er ad d res s ed th i s as p ect o f Ea r l s ’s arg u m en t

, wh i ch al s o

r e l i es up o n an d refers t o v ari o u s d o cu m en t s o f i n co rp o rat i o n an d t h ei r ti m i ng ’ s i m pa c t

o n t he co n t r a c t an d

, l i k ewi s e, w h i ch en t it y was t h e real part y i n i n t eres t at t h e t i m e

An ek e fi l ed s u i t

. Fo r ex am p l e, t h e cert i fi cat e o f o rg an i zat i on fo r Pri n cewi l l O. An ek e,

LLC, s h o ws t h at i t was o rg an ized as a “ do m es t i c l i m i t ed l i ab i li t y co m p an y ” o n Ap ri l

1 8

, 2 0 0 7

. Bu t a cert i fi cat e o f am en d m en t

, d at ed Ap ri l 1 1

, 2 01 6 , effect u at ed a n am e

ch an ge fo r Pri ncewi l l O A n ek e

, LLC, t o Su ns h i ne Real E s t at e Pro pert i es I, LLC.

9An ek e d ep o s ed t h at t h e n am e ch an g e t o Su n s h i n e Real Es t at e Pro p ert i es I, LLC was

a m i s t ak e, an d t h at h e i n s t ru ct ed fo r t h e n am e o f h is l aw p r a c t i ce to b e ch an g ed to

An ek e Law Offi ces

. An d w h en t h i s was n o t d o n e, h e newl y i nco rp o rat ed An ek e Law

Offi ces

. An ek e fu rt h er t es t ifi ed t o s t art i n g Su n s h in e Real Es t at e Pro p ert i es b ecau s e

h e p urch as ed m

u l t i p l e real es t at e p ro p ert i es in t h e n am e o f Pri n cewi ll O. An ek e, LLC,

an d h e deci d ed i t wo u l d b e b es t t o t ran s f e r t h o s e pro p ert i es i n t o t h e n am e o f a real

es t at e co rp o rat i o n

. Th e s co p e of s erv i ces p ro v i d ed b y Su n s h i n e Real Es t at e Pro p ert i es

i s t o o w n pro p ert i es

, di sp o se of p ro p ert i es

, an d “ b ran ch in t o an y p ro p ert y -rel at ed

m at t ers i n t h e fu tu re.” 8

On t he o t h er h an d

, An ek e al s o t es t i fi ed t h at

, “ t o t h e b es t o f [h i s ] k n o w l ed g e,”

h i s fo rm er l aw fi rm ’ s n am e was ch an ged t o An ek e Leg al Serv i c e s

, an d t hat An ek e

Leg al Serv i ces

, wh i ch lat er b ecam e An ek e Law O ffi ces

, carri ed t h e s am e t ax ID t h at

b el o n g ed t o Pri n cewi l l O. An ek e, LLC. Ad di t i o n al ly

, An ek e ex ecu t ed a t ran s fer an d

as s i g n m en t o f ri g h t s an d l i a b i l i t i es o f Pri n cewi ll O

. An ek e, LLC, t o An ek e Law

Offi ces

, LLC, effect i v e o n Ju n e 1 4

, 2 0 1 6

. He as s ert ed t h at th e p urp o s e of t h e t ran s fer

an d as s i gn m en t was t o “ co n ti n u e u n der t h e n ew en t i ty an y rel at i o n s h i p s an d co n t ract s

8 A n ek e’ s wi fe, w h o i s a m ed i cal d o ct or, i s al s o a m em b er o f S u n s h i n e Real

Es t at e Pro p ert i es

.

10an d l eg al wo rk t h at h ad b een d o n e un d er Pri n cewi l l O

. An ek e, LLC[.] ” Bu t An ek e

ag reed t h at

, at t h e t i m e t h e t ran s fer an d as s i g n m en t was s i g n ed

, Pri n cewi l l O. An ek e,

LLC, was n o l o n g er an en ti t y

, i t s n am e al read y h av i n g ch an ged t o Su n s h i n e Real

Es t at e Pro p ert i es I, LLC.

As fo r An ek e’ s o t h er LLCs

, t he art i cl es of i n c o rp o rat i o n fo r An ek e Leg al

Serv i ces

, LLC, s h o w t h at it was o rg an i zed as a “ do m es t ic l i m i t ed l i ab i li t y co m p an y ”

o n M arch 3 1

, 2 01 6

. 9 An d t h e cert i fi cat e o f o rg an i zat io n fo r An ek e L aw Offi ces

, LLC,

s h o w s t h at i t was al s o o rg an i zed as a “ do m es t i c l i m i t ed li ab i l i t y co m pan y ” o n J u n e

1 4 , 2 0 1 6

. 1 0

Th e t ri al co u rt ’ s m i s ap p re h e n s i o n o f Earl s ’ s arg um en t res u l t ed i n i t ru l i n g

ag ai n s t h i m an d i n fav o r o f An ek e. A n d n o w, Earl s arg u es t hat t h e t ri al co u rt er r ed

b y m is u n ders t an d in g o r m i s ch aract eri zi n g hi s arg u m en t

. Bu t wh en t h is Co u rt rev iews

a d eci si o n o f a t ri al co u rt o n a m o t i on fo r su m m ary ju d g m en t

, i t “ s it s as a co u rt fo r t h e

9 Th e art i cl es o f i n co rp o rat i on d i d n o t i n c l ud e an y o p t i o n al p ro v is i on wi t h a

s t at ed p u rp o s e fo r t h e co m p an y

.

1 0 W i t h i n t h e art i cl es o f i n c o rp o rat i o n fo r An ek e Law Offi ces i s a s t at em en t

i n cl u d ed as an “ o pt i o n al p ro v i si o n ” t h at t h e “ p u rp o se o f t h e c o m p an y i s t o p ract i ce

t h e p ro fes s i o n o f l aw an d th e co m p an y el ect s t o b e g o v ern ed wh ere ap p l i cab l e b y t h e

p ro v is i o n s o f OCGA § 1 4 -7 -1 et s eq

. On l y a p ers on au t h o ri zed to p ract i ce l aw i n t h e

St at e o f G eo rg i a an d i n g o od s t an d i n g w i t h t h e St at e Bar o f G eo rg i a an d i n g o o d

s t an d i n g wi t h t h e St at e Bar o f Geo rg i a m ay b e a m em

ber o f t h e co m

pan y .”

11co rrect io n o f erro rs o f l aw.” 1 1 An d an erro r o f l aw h as as i t s b as i s a “ s peci fi c ru l i n g

m ad e b y t h e tri al co u rt .” 1 2 T h u s

, b ecau s e t h e t ri al co urt n ev er co n s i d ered Earl s ’ s t ru e

arg u m en t

, i t di d n ot ru l e u p on i t

. 1 3 To b e s ure, t h ere are i n st an ces w h en t h is Co u rt wi l l

rev i ew a reco rd an d d et erm i n e th at a s u m m ary ju d g m en t ru l i n g was ri g h t fo r a reas o n

o t h e r t h a n t h e o n e g i ven b y t h e t ri al co u rt

, b u t i t is i m p ro p er fo r us t o co n s i d er

wh et h er th e t ri al co u rt w as “ wro n g fo r an y reas o n .” 1 4 In d eed

, w i t ho u t a ru l i n g o n t h i s

1 1 Pi ed mo n t Ho s p

., In c. v. D. M.

, 3 3 5 Ga. Ap p

. 4 4 2

, 4 4 8 (3 ) (7 7 9 SE2 d 3 6 )

(2 0 1 5) (p u n ct u at i on o m i t ted ).

1 2 Id

. (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

1 3 S ee Au t o -Own er

s In s. Co . v. Ha l e Ha ven Pr o ps

., In c. , 3 46 Ga. Ap p. 3 9 , 5 4

(3 ) (a) (8 1 5 SE2 d 5 7 4 ) (2 0 1 8 ) (“ Al t h ou g h b o t h p art i es ’ t i m el i n es s arg u m en t s were

rai s ed i n t h e t ri al co u rt

, t h e reco rd d o es n o t sh o w t h at t h e tri al co u rt ad d res sed t h em

. Th u s, i f we were t o co n cl ud e t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred

, i t wo u l d b e o n acco u n t o f an

i s su e n ev er ru l ed o n b el o w.” (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed )); Neb o Ven t u r es

, LLC v. No va Pr o

Ri s k So l u t i o n s

, L.P.

, 32 4 Ga. Ap p

. 8 3 6

, 8 4 8 (4 ) (7 5 2 SE2 d 18 ) (2 01 3 ) (“ Al t h o u g h t h e

i s su e of an ex t en s i o n t o t h e

. . . Ag reem en t was rai s ed b el o w b y t h e ev id en ce an d by

[t he] arg u m en t s i n s u p p o rt o f [t h e] m o t io n fo r su m m ary ju d g m en t

, t h e t ri al co u rt d id

n o t ad d res s t h e m at ter i n i ts su m m ary ju d g m en t o rd er. Th u s

, i f we were t o co n cl u d e

t h at t h e tri al co u rt erred

, i t wo u l d b e o n acco u n t of an i s su e n ev er ru l ed o n b el o w.”).

1 4 S ee Au t o -Own er

s In s

. , 3 4 6 Ga. A p p

. at 5 4 (3 ) (a) (“ An d al t h o u gh i n cert ai n

i n s t an ces an ap p el l at e co u rt can rev i ew a reco rd an d det erm in e t h at a s u m m a r y

ju d g m en t ru li n g was ri gh t fo r s om e reas o n o t h er t h an th at g i v en by t he tri al co u rt

, an

ap p el l at e co u rt sh o u l d n o t co ns i d er w h et h er th e t ri al co u rt was ‘ wro n g fo r an y

reas on .’ ” (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed )); Pi ed m on t Ho s p

. , 3 3 5 Ga. Ap p . at 4 4 9 (3 ) (s am e).

12s p eci fi c q u es t io n, t he i s s u e i s o u t s i d e t h e p ro p er s co p e o f o u r rev iew. 1 5 Acco rd i n g l y

,

we v acat e t h e tri al co u rt ’ s o rd er g ran t i n g s u m m ary ju d g m en t t o An ek e an d d en y i n g

s u m m ary ju d g m en t t o Earl s

, an d we rem an d fo r th e t ri al co u rt ’ s co n s i d erat i o n o f wh at

Earl s act ua l ly arg u es , as d i s cu s s ed an d d et ai l ed s u p r a

.

2

. Becau s e we v acat e an d rem an d i n Di v i s i o n 1

, w e n eed n o t ad d res s Earl s ’ s

rem ai n i n g en um erat i o n s o f erro r.

Fo r al l t h es e reas o n s

, w e v acat e t h e t ri al co urt ’ s ord er an d r e m a n d fo r

p ro ceed in g s co n s is t en t wi t h t h i s o p in i o n.

Ju d g men t va ca t ed a n d ca s e r ema n d ed wi t h d i rect i o n

. Go bei l a n d Ho d g es

, JJ.,

co n cu r

.

1 5 S e e Au t o -Own er

s In s

. , 3 4 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 4 (3 ) (a) (“ Th es e [u nru l ed u p o n ]

arg u m en t s are t h erefo re bey o n d o u r p ro p er s co p e o f rev i ew.”); Pi ed mo n t Ho s p

. , 3 3 5

Ga. Ap p . at 4 4 9 (2 ) (“ H ere, t he t ri al co u rt ex p res s l y d ecl i n ed t o ru l e o n t h e i s s u e o f

wh et h er [t h e ap pel l an ts ] are eq u i t ab l y es t o p p ed f r o m a s s ert i n g a s t at u t e o f rep o s e

d efen s e b as ed o n i ts erro n eo u s d et erm i n at io n t hat n o m ed i cal m al p ract i ce cl ai m s

r e m a i ned

. Becau s e t he tri al co u rt d i d n ot reach t h e i s su e o f eq u i t ab l e es t o p p e l i n

d en y i n g t h e m o t i on s fo r s u m m ary ju dg m e n t

, w e fi n d t hat t h e i ss u e i s o u t s i d e t h e

p ro p er s co p e o f o ur rev i ew i n t h i s ap p eal .”).

13