FOURTH D I VI SI ON

DI LLA R D, C. J.

, D OYLE, P. J.

, and M ERCI ER, J.

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

October 30, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 8 A0 91 5 . BOW E N v . LAIRD. DO-0 3 3

D O Y LE , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

Th i s ap peal ari s es fro m a q u i et t i tl e act i o n fi l ed b y E

. Co d y L a i r d

, J r., in

Oct o b er 2 0 0 7 wi t h reg ard t o a p ro p ert y d eed ed to h i m b y Th o m as C. B o w e n in

Sep tem b er 1 9 9 8

. Aft er t h e q u iet t i t l e d ecl arat i o n was m ad e, a ju ry t ri al was h el d o n

at t o rn ey fees u n d er OCGA § 13 -6 -1 1 at t h e co n cl u si on of wh i ch th e ju ry fo u n d n o

b ad fai t h

, b u t award ed Lai rd $ 7 8 ,2 6 6 i n at t o rn ey fees fo r un n eces s ary t ro u b l e an d

ex p en s e. Bo wen ap p eal s fro m t h e t ri a l co u rt ’ s d en i al o f h i s m o t io n fo r a d i rect ed

v erd i ct

, hi s m o t i o n fo r ju d g m en t n o t wi t h st an d in g th e v erd i ct (“ J N O V”), an d t h e ju ryv erd i ct

, arg u i n g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y d en y i n g h i s m o ti o n s fo r a d i rect ed v erd i ct

an d fo r J NOV on t h e i s s u e of at t o rn ey fees

. 1 Fo r t h e reas on s t h at fo l l o w

, we rev ers e.

“ On ap p eal fro m t h e den i al o f a m o t i o n fo r a d i rect ed v erd ict o r fo r [J NOV]

,

we co n s t ru e t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e to t h e p art y o p p o s i n g t h e m o t i o n,

an d t h e s t an d ard o f rev i ew i s wh e t h e r t h ere i s an y ev i d en ce t o su p po rt t he ju ry ’ s

v erd i ct .” 2

Th e reco rd s h o ws t hat in Oct o b er 1 9 98

, as p art o f a lan d d eal i n wh i ch Bo wen

p u rch as ed a l arg e t ract fro m Lai rd

, Bo wen co n v ey ed an 8.4 5 -acre p arcel t o Lai rd t h at

ad jo i n ed Lai rd ’ s o t h er pro p ert y (“ Lai rd p ro p ert y ”). In Feb ru ary 2 00 0

, Bo wen

u n i n t en t i on al l y co n v ey ed th e s am e 8 .4 5 acre trac t a l o n g wi t h m ore th an 3 ,0 0 0

ad d it i o n al acres (“ HCC pro pert y ”) t o Th e Hi g h lan d s at Cl ear Creek

, LLC (“ HCC”), 3

an d t h e HCC p ro pert y w a s t h e n s u b d i v i d ed an d co n vey ed as v ari o u s l o t s t o o t h er

b u y ers b et ween 2 0 0 0 an d 2 0 0 5, i n cl u d i n g fo ur t hat o v erl ap p ed t h e Lai rd p ro p ert y

.

1 Bo wen al s o arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y fi n d i n g i n 20 1 4 t h at Bo wen

was l i ab l e fo r at t o rn ey fees u n d er OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1 as a m at t er o f l aw an d b y fai l i n g

t o g i v e a p art i cu l ar ju ry ch arg e, b u t we n eed n o t ad dres s t hes e en u m erat i o n s o f erro r

b as ed o n o ur h o l d in g h erei n

.

2 (Pu n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed .) Pa r k v. Ni ch ol

s

, 3 0 7 Ga. A p p

. 8 4 1, 8 4 5 (7 0 6 SE2 d

6 9 8 ) (2 0 1 1 ).

3 Bo wen was a m em

b er o f t h i s LLC.

2In J an u ary 20 0 7

, Lai rd had d i s co v ered th ro u gh hi s p ro pert y t ax b i l l, t h a t h i s

p ro p ert y was l i s ted as a t o t al o f 5 7 rat h er th an 6 5 acres

, l ead i n g h i m t o i n qu i r e i n to

t h e i s s u e an d di sco ver t h e s e c o n d co n v ey an ce o f t h e 8 .4 5 acres b y Bo wen t o HCC.

Lai rd co n t act ed Bo wen ab o u t t h e i s s u e, an d Bo wen ag reed t o “ t ak e care o f i t ,”

d i s cu s s i n g t h e i s s ue wi t h HCC m em b ers an d at t o rn ey s

. I n F e b ru ary 2 0 0 7, Lai rd ’ s

at t o rn ey fi l ed an affi d av i t i n s u p p o rt o f t i t l e cro s s -referen ci n g t h e d u p l i cat e

co n vey an ce i n t h e p ro p ert y reco rd s fo r al l th e affect ed l o t s

. Al t h o u g h Bo wen n o

l o n g er h ad a cl ai m t o t i t l e i n an y o f t h e affect ed pro p ert i es

, h is at to rn ey in v es t i g at ed

t h e i s su e an d d et erm i n ed th at t h e i n i t i al t i t l e s earch o n t h e 3 ,0 0 0 p lu s acres fai l ed to

d i s co v er t h e 19 9 8 co n vey an ce, l ead i n g t o th e i n c l u s i o n o f t h e 8 .4 5 -acre t ract i n t h e

subse q ue nt tr a n sa ct i o ns ; Bo wen ’ s at t o rn ey at t em p t ed t o res o l v e th e i ssue by s w a pping

o u t r e m a i n i n g HCC l o t s

, as s u m i n g s ecu ri t y i n teres t s

, an d u s i n g ot h er m ean s o f

rem ed y i n g t h e s i t u at io n

.

Di s s at i s fi ed wi t h Bo wen ’ s at t o rn ey ’ s effo rt s

, L ai rd fi l ed t h e i n st an t q u i et t i t l e

p et i t i o n i n Oct ob er 20 0 7

, h o p i ng t o rem o ve th e al l eg ed cl o u d o n h i s t i t l e, al t h o u g h h e

d en ied hav in g been p rev en t ed fro m s el li n g h i s p ro p ert y b as ed o n t h e l at er co n v ey an ce

3o r t h at t h e ex is t en ce o f t h e l at er d eed s were cau si n g h im i m m ed i at e i n

ju ry

. 4 Lai rd l at er

am en d ed h i s p et i t io n t o i n cl u de cl ai m s ag ai n s t Bo wen an d o t h er ad v ers e p art i es fo r

at t o rn ey fees an d co s t s p urs u an t t o OCGA § § 9 -1 5 -1 4 an d 13 -6 -1 1, arg u i n g t h at t h ey

h ad been st u b b o rn l y l i t i gi ou s

, act ed i n bad fai t h

, an d cau sed L a i r d u n n eces s ary

t ro u b l e an d ex p en s e.

In Au g u s t 20 0 8

, aft er o b t ai n i n g e x t e n s i o n s o f ti m e t o at t em p t t o wo rk o n

s o l u t i on s t o t h e l at er co n v ey an ces

, Bo wen an s w ered t h e p et i t i o n, ad m i t t i n g t h at h e

h ad n o cl ai m o n t he p ro p ert y

, t h at h e erro n eo u s l y h ad i n cl u d ed L ai rd ’ s pro p ert y i n a

l at er co nv ey an ce t o HCC, an d t h at h e had no cl ai m t o t h at p ro p ert y at t h e t i m e o f t h e

l at er co n v ey an ce (t o t h e ex t en t t h at i t co rres p on d ed wi th a part i cu l ar s u rv ey ); Bo wen

,

h o wev er, d i s p ut ed t h at Lai rd was en t i tl ed t o at to rn ey fees

.

HCC, t he b u y ers o f t h e fo u r affect ed HCC lo t s

, an d t h ree b an k s h o l d i n g

s ecu ri t y d eed s t o t h ree of t ho s e l o t s

, 5 an s wered t h e p et i t i o n as s ert i n g v ari o u s defen s es

,

an d cro s s -cl ai m s were fi l ed am o n g t he d efen d an t s

. Lai rd m o v ed fo r s u m m ary

4 See OCGA § 2 3-3 -6 0 et s eq

. Lai rd al s o fi l ed a l i s p en d en s n ot i ce. At t h e t i m e

Lai rd fi l ed s u i t , n o n e o f t h e HCC b uy ers h ad i m p ro v ed t h e fo u r l o t s at i s s u e.

5 Du ri n g t h e p e n d en cy o f t h e cas e, th e Fed eral Dep o si t an d In s u ran ce

Co rp o rat i o n t o o k recei v ers h i p of t wo o f t h e t h ree b an k s t h at fi l ed an swers t o Lai rd ’ s

p et i t i o n

.

4ju d g m en t as t o t he is s u e o f t i t l e, b u t h e d i d n o t as s ert an y arg u m en t i n s u pp o rt o f h i s

req u es t fo r f

e e s un d er OCGA § § 9 -1 5 -1 4 an d 1 3-6 -1 1 ; t h e defen d an t s o pp o s ed t h e

m o ti o n

, as k i n g fo r a rep o rt b y a s p eci al m as ter as req u i red p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 2 3 -3

-

6 6

. On Jan u ary 2 7

, 2 0 1 0

, a s peci al m as t er i s su ed a rep ort

, 6 co n cl u d i n g t h at Lai rd h el d

fee s i m p l e ti t l e i n th e p ro p ert y an d t h at t h e s u b s eq u en t l y reco rd ed d eed rel at ed t o t h e

s eco n d co n v ey an ce b y Bo wen t o HCC, t h e s u bd i v i s i o n b y HCC, a n d s u b s eq u en t

co n vey an ces b y H C C t o o th er p art i es an d rel at ed secu ri t y i nt eres t s were cl o u d s o n

Lai rd ’ s t it l e an d s ho u l d b e rem o v ed

. On M ay 5

, 2 0 1 0, t h e tri al co u rt en t ered a d ecree

q u i et i n g L ai rd ’ s ti t l e as reco m m en ded b y t h e s p eci al m as t er, b u t t h e d ecree p res erv ed

fo r l at er res o l u ti o n “ [a] l l o t h er cl ai m s b et ween t h e part i es

, i n cl u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t ed

t o cl ai m s fo r at t o rn ey [] fees an d cro s s-cl ai m s b et ween t he D e f e n d a n t s

. . . .”

Th ro u g h o u t t h e pen d en cy o f t h e cas e, t h e d efen dan t s rep eat ed l y cl ai m ed t h at Lai rd

co u ld n o t co l l ect at t o rn ey fees p u rs u an t to a q u i et t it l e p et i ti o n an d arg u ed t h at h i s

cl ai m s fo r at t o rn ey fees s ho u l d b e s t ri ck en fro m t h e p et it io n

.

6 Al t ho u g h a s p eci al m as t er was ap p o in t ed b y t he t ri al co u rt i n No v em b er 2 0 0 7,

t h e o ri g i n al ap p o i n t ee d i d n ot p rep are a rep o rt

, an d aft er req u es t s by Bo wen an d o t h er

d efen d an t s fo r a sp eci al m as t er rep o rt (an d ev en tu al l y a m o t i on fo r rep lacem en t fro m

Lai rd ) h e was rep l aced i n Au g u s t 2 0 0 9

.

5Nearl y s ev en y ears l at er, t h e i s s u e o f at t o rn ey fees u n d er OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1 was

t ri ed b y a ju ry ag ai n s t Bo wen o n l y

. Du ri n g t h e t r i a l

, Bo wen m o v ed fo r a d i rect ed

v erd i ct

, w h i ch t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed

, an d t h e ju ry t h ereaft er fo un d n o b ad fai t h o n t h e

p art o f Bo wen b u t award ed Lai rd $ 78 ,2 6 6 i n at t o rn ey fees fo r “ un n eces sary t ro u b l e

an d ex pen s e.” 7 Bo wen fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r J NOV, wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed

. Bo wen

n o w ap p eal s

, an d we rev ers e.

Bo wen arg ues i n s ev eral en u m erat io n s of erro r t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred by

d en y i n g h i s m o t i o n fo r a di rect ed v erd i ct o r J NOV as t o th e j u ry ’ s fee award u n d er

OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1 . W e ag ree.

A q u i et t i tl e act i o n u n d er [OCGA § 2 3 -3 -6 0 et s eq

. ] i s i n rem

. It

i s n o t

, i n fact o r effect

, an act i o n ag ai n s t

. . . an y o t h er p ers o n or en t i t y

.

It i s an act i o n ag ai n s t t h e u n d erl y i n g pro p ert y

. . . i t sel f, an d i t s pu rp o s e

i s t o rem o v e an y an d al l cl o u d s o n t h e t it l e o f t h at p ro p ert y

. In an act i o n

i n rem

, th e n am ed defen d an t i s real o r pers o n al p ro p ert y

. An y p e rs o n

wh o cl ai m s an i n teres t i n t h at p ro p e r t y/ d e fen d an t m u s t affi rm at i v el y

as s ert t h at cl ai m ag ai n s t t h e p ro p ert y / d efen dan t in t h e q u iet ti t le act i on

. 8

7 Th e i ss u e o f s t ub b o rn l i t i g i o u s n es s was n o t p u rs u ed b y Lai rd

.

8 (Fo o t n o t e an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) TDGA, L L C v

. C B IRA, LLC

, 2 9 8 Ga.

5 1 0

, 5 1 2 (7 8 3 SE2 d 1 0 7 ) (2 0 1 6 )

. See al so Si mmo n s v. Co mmu n it y Ren ewa l &

Red emp t i o n

, 2 8 6 G a. 6

, 8 (2 ) (6 85 SE2 d 75 ) (2 00 9 ) (“ In a q ui et t i t l e act i o n

, a p l ai n t i ff

m u st reco v er o n t h e s t ren g t h o f h i s o wn t i t l e o r n o t at al l .”) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

6W i t h reg ard t o a qu i a t i m et ag ai n s t al l t h e wo rl d pro ceed i n g p u rs u an t t o OCGA

§ 2 3-3 -6 0 et s eq

., t h ere al s o i s n o s t at u t o ry ri g ht t o fees

, an d g en eral l y s p eak i n g

, t h ey

are n o t award ed

. 9 Nev ert h el es s

,

OCGA § 13 -6 -1 1 au th o ri zes l i t i gat i o n ex p en s es [i f] t he d efen d an t h as

act ed i n bad fai t h

, h as b een s t u b b o rn ly li t i g i o u s

, or h a s c a u s e d th e

p l ai n t i ff u n n eces s ary t ro u b le an d ex p en s e.

. . . Th e s tat u to ry b a d f a i t h

m u s t h av e ari s en o ut o f t h e t ran s act i o n o n wh ich th e cau s e o f act i o n i s

p red icat ed rat h er th an d efen d an t ’ s co n d u ct i n d efen d i n g th e cas e

. B a d

fai t h o t h er t h an m ere refu s al t o p ay a ju s t deb t m ay au t h o ri ze t h e ju ry t o

award at t o rn ey fees

, p ro v i d ed i t i s n o t p ro m p ted b y an h o n es t m i s t ak e as

t o on e’ s ri g ht s o r d u t i es bu t b y s o m e i n t eres t ed o r s i n is t er m ot i ve.

. . . As

t o w h et h er t h e d efen d an t was s t u b b o rn ly l i t i g i o u s o r cau s ed t h e p l ai n ti ff

u n n eces s ary t ro u bl e an d ex p en s e, m ere refu s al t o p ay a d i sp u ted cl ai m

,

wi t h ou t s ui t i s n ot s u ffi ci en t t o award at t o rn ey fees

. Th e k ey t o th e t es t

i s w h et h er t h ere i s a b o n a fi d e co n t ro v ers y

. [If] no n e ex i s t s

, fo rci n g a

p l ai n t i ff t o res o rt to th e co u rt s i n ord er t o co l l ect i s p lai n l y cau s in g h i m

t o g o t o u n neces s ary

t ro u b l e an d ex p en s e. 1 0

9 See W a l ker v. W a l ker

, 2 6 6 Ga. 4 14 (1 ) (4 67 SE2 d 58 3 ) (1 9 9 6 ).”As a g en eral

ru l e, an award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s an d ex p en s es o f l i t i g at i o n are n o t av ai l ab l e t o t h e

p rev ai l i n g p art y u nl es s au t h o ri zed b y s t at u t e or co n t ract .” Ca r y v. G ui r a g o s s i a n

, 2 7 0

Ga. 1 9 2

, 1 9 5 (4 ) (5 0 8 SE2 d 4 03 ) (1 9 9 8 ). W e n ot e t h at u nd er OCGA § 23 -3 -6 8

, a t ri al

co u rt i s au th o ri zed t o t ax fees rel at ed t o th e s p eci al m as t er in i t s d i scret i o n , b u t t h i s

i s su e i s n o t b efo re u s . See S i mmo n s

, 2 8 6 Ga. at 9 (4 ).

1 0 (Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i tt ed .) As s o ci a t ed S o ft wa r e Co ns u l t a n t

s Or g.

v. W ys ocki , 1 7 7 Ga. Ap p . 1 3 5 , 1 3 6 (1 ) (3 3 8 SE2 d 6 7 9 ) (1 9 8 5).

7In t h i s cas e, t h e j u ry fo u n d n o b ad fai th i n t h e u n d erl y i n g l an d t ran s act i o n

b et ween Bo wen an d L ai rd

, an d t h u s

, we t u rn t o t h e i s su e o f “ u nn eces s ary t ro u b l e an d

ex p en s e.” “ ‘ [C] au s i n g t h e p l ai n t i ff u n n eces s ary t ro u bl e an d ex pen s e’ refer[s ] t o a

d efen d an t ’ s fo rci n g o f t h e p l ai n t i ff t o s u e wh ere n o ‘ b o n a fi d e co n t ro v ers y ’ ex i s t s

.

Th e Su p rem e C o u r t h as d es cri b ed t h i s on a n u m b er o f o ccas i o n s as a ‘ w an t o n o r

ex ces s i v e i n d u l g en ce i n l i t ig at i o n

. ’ ” 1 1 W h il e t h e ex i s t en ce o f t h es e fact o rs no rm al l y

i s fo r a j u ry to deci d e, i f t h ere i s n o ev i d en ce to s u p p o rt s u ch fi nd i n g s

, t h en

, as a

m at t er o f l aw, at t o rn ey fees are n ot au t h ori zed

. 1 2

Here, d u e t o t h e d u pl i cat e co n v ey an ces , t h ere was a b o n a fi de co n t ro v ers y as

t o t h e t i t l e o f t he 8 .4 5 -acre p arcel

. 1 3 Th us

, it was n eces s ary fo r L ai rd to fi l e t h e q u i et

1 1 (Ci t at i o n o m i tt ed .) Jef

f Go o l sb y Ho mes Co r

p. v. S mi t h

, 1 6 8 G a. A p p

. 2 1 8

, 2 2 1 (2 ) (3 0 8 SE2 d 5 64 ) (1 9 8 3 ).

1 2 See i d . at 2 2 1 -2 2 2 (2 ).

1 3 Becau s e t h i s fee award was n ot b as ed on OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4

, i t c a n n o t b e

s u s t ai n ed b as ed o n d il at o ry co n d u ct d u ri n g l i t i g at i o n

. See O’Co n n o r v. Bi el s ki , 2 8 8

Ga. 8 1, 83 -8 4 n

. 3 (7 01 SE2 d 8 5 6 ) (2 0 1 0 ); S t o n e v. Ki n g

, 1 9 6 Ga. Ap p

. 2 5 1, 2 5 3 (3 )

(3 9 6 SE2 d 4 5 ) (1 99 0 ) (“ OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1

. . . p erm i t s an award o f at t o rn ey fees [i f]

t h e defen d an t h as act ed i n b ad fai t h

, h as b een s t u b b orn l y l i t i g i o u s, o r has cau s ed t h e

p l ai n t i ff u n n eces s ary t ro u b le an d ex p en s e, [an d i t] h as b een hel d t o ap p l y t o co n d u ct

ari s in g fro m t h e t ran sact i o n u n d erl y i n g t he cau se of act i o n in li t ig at i o n

. Co n v ers el y

, OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4

. . . au t h o ri zes t he reco v ery o f at t o rn ey fee ex pen s e s i n cu rred in

res p o n d in g t o cert ai n cl ai m s

, d efen s es

, o r l i t ig at i o n t act i cs

, [an d i t ] h as b een

i n t erp ret ed t o g o v e r n c o n d u ct o ccu rri n g d u ri n g t h e l i ti g at i o n

. ”) (ci t at i o n s an d

8t i tl e p et i t i o n i n o rd er t o p ro t ect h i s fu ll i n t eres t i n t h e p ro p ert y

. Bo w en h ad n o cl ai m

t o ti t l e i n t h e Lai rd p ro p ert y at t hat p o i n t i n t i m e, an d h e ap p ro p ri at el y fi l ed an an s wer

ad m i t t i ng as m

u ch i n res p o n s e t o t h e p et i t i o n. A p et i ti o n t o q ui et t i t l e m u s t b e b ro u g ht

b y on e wh o h as cl ai m t o t i t l e, 1 4 an d b ecau s e Bo wen had n o cl ai m to t i t l e t o t h e Lai rd

p r o p e rt y

, i t was n eces s ary fo r Lai rd t o b ri n g t h e pet i t i on

. Pres u m ab l y

, th e ju ry ’ s

v erd i ct was p rem i s e d o n t h e n ot i o n t h at Bo wen ’ s l at er co n v ey an ce t o HCC cau s ed

t h i s is s u e, 1 5 an d t h erefo re, Bo wen s h o u l d p ay Lai rd ’ s fees ; h o wev er, t h e m ere fact t h at

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

1 4 See TDGA, LLC , 2 9 8 Ga. at 5 1 2

.

1 5 W e n o t e t h at Lai rd ’ s b ri ef o n ap p eal do es n o t rel y o n Bo wen ’ s co n d u ct i n t h e

t ran s act io n

, b u t arg u es t h at t he ju ry v erd i ct was s u p p o rt ed b y ev i d en ce o f B o w en ’ s

at t o rn ey ’ s al l eg ed d i l at o ry co n du ct i n fai l i n g t o t ak e effo rt s t o res o l v e t h e l i t i g at i o n

fo r Lai rd

. Fi rs t

, as we p rev i o u s l y n o t ed , an y

co n d uct t h at o ccu rred d u ri n g l i t i g at i o n

can n ot s u p p o rt an award u nd er OCGA § 1 3-6 -1 1

. See S t o n e

, 1 9 6 G a. Ap p

. at 2 5 3 (3 ).

Seco n d

, cl ai m s ag ai n st an i n d iv i d u al ’ s at t o rn ey ’ s co n du ct s h o ul d b e b ro u g h t p u rs u an t

t o OCGA § 5 1 -7 -8 1

. Fi n al l y

, as ex p l ai n ed ab o v e, a q ui et ti t l e p et i t i o n i s n o t an

ad v ers ary p ro ceed i n g bro u g h t ag ai n s t an i n d i v i d u al fo r act i o n ab le b eh av i o r s u ch as

a cl ai m of b reach o f w arran ty o r frau d ( c l a i m s wh i ch Lai rd d i d n o t p u rs u e ag ai n s t

Bo wen ), b u t rat h er, a l eg al p ro c e e d i n g t o cl ear t it l e, wh i ch Bo wen d i d n o t fi g h t o r

s t on ewal l

. To th e ex t en t th at Bo wen co u l d h av e “ t ak en care” o f t h e is s u e, it i s u n cl ear

s p eci fi cal l y wh at h e co u l d h av e d o n e i f h e d i d n o t recei v e co op erat i on fro m t h e o t h er

d efen d an t s

.

9a d efen dan t’ s act i o n h as cau s ed an i s s u e wh i ch l at er req u i res l i t i g at i on t o co rrect d o es

n o t i n an d o f i t s el f p ro v i d e a b as i s fo r t h e award o f at t o rn ey fees

. 1 6

It m ay b e as s u m ed t h at ev ery l aws u i t cau s es t h e p l a i n t i ff s o m e

t ro u bl e an d ex p en s e, b ut t h i s i s n o t wh at t h e s tat u te h as i n m in d

. On e o f

t h e p ro v i s i o n s of t h e [B] i l l o f [R] i g h t s co n t ai n ed in th e [C] o n s t i t u t io n o f

t h i s St at e d ecl ares t h at “ N o p ers o n s h al l b e d ep ri v ed o f t h e ri g h t t o

p ro s ecu t e o r d efen d h is o wn cau s e i n an y o f t h e co urt s o f t h is St at e, i n

p ers on

, b y at to rn ey

, o r bo t h .” Th i s i s a p ri v i l eg e gran t ed t o t h e d efen d an t

a s w e l l as t h e p l ai n t i ff. W h ere t h ere i s a b o na fi de co n t ro v ers y fo r t h e

t ri b u n al s t o s et t l e, an d t h e p art i es can n o t ad ju s t i t am i cab l y

, t h ere s h o u l d

b e n o b u rd en i n g o f o n e wi t h t h e co un s el fees o f t h e o t h er, u n l es s t h ere

h as b een wan t o n o r ex ces s i v e i n d u l g en ce i n l i t i gat i o n

. 1 7

Ju d g men t r ever sed . Di l l a r d

, C. J., a n d Mer ci er

, J., co n cu r

.

1 6 Cf. Ca r y

, 2 7 0 G a. at 19 5 -1 9 6 (5 ) (“ u n l es s t h e defen d an t was g u i l t y o f d ecei t

o r frau d i n t h e s al e o f th e p ro p ert y

, o r act ed i n b ad fai t h as res p ect s t h e ex i st en ce o f

an i ncu m b ran ce o n t h e p ro p ert y wh en [h e] so l d i t, t he p l a i n ti ff can n o t

, i n a s u i t to

reco v er dam ag es fo r a b reach o f t h e w arran ty

, reco v er at t o rn ey ’ s fees fo r p ro s ecu t i n g

t h e act i o n ”) (p u nct u at io n om i t t ed ); Po n e v. Ba r b r e

, 5 7 Ga. Ap p

. 6 84

, 6 9 1 (1 9 6 SE

2 8 7 ) (1 9 3 8 ) (p h y s i cal p reced en t o n l y ). See al s o S mi t h

, 1 6 8 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 2 2 ( 2 )

(ex p l ai n i n g t h at s i m

p l y becau s e t h e d efen d an t “ m ay h av e ap p eared to b e s t u b b o rn l y

l i ti g i o u s d u e t o h is pers o n al i n vo l v em en t an d l ack o f lawy erl y s k i ll s d o es n o t d efeat

t h e fact t h at d efen dan t was ab l e t o d em on s trat e t h at t h e d efen dan t s ’ p o s i t i o n h ad s o m e

m eri t

, t ho u g h n o t en o u g h t o wi n a v erd ict

. Becau se a b o na fi d e d i s p u t e ex i s t ed an d

d efen d an t s h ad a reas o nab l e d efen s e at t ri al

, t h ey s h o u l d n ot h av e b een b u rd en ed wi th

p l ai n t i ffs ’ at to rn ey fees ”).

1 7 (Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i tt ed

. ) W es t v. H a a s

, 1 9 1 Ga. 5 6 9, 5 7 5 (1 3

SE2 d 3 7 6) (1 9 4 1).

10