FI FTH DI VI SI ON REESE, P. J.

, M A RKLE and COLVI N, 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.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S
C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN

TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

June 29, 2020



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 0 A0 56 0 . W IM PY v

. M ARTIN.

M A R K LE
, J ud g e.

J i m m y B. M art i n s u ed Fl o y d W im p y fo r un p ai d p ro fi t s he was al l eg ed l y o wed

u n d er th e p art i es ’ p art ners hi p ag reem en t s reg ard i n g t w o co n s t ru ct i o n p ro j e c t s

.

Fo l l o wi ng a t ri al

, t h e ju ry fo u n d i n fav o r o f W i m p y o n t h e b reach of co n t ract cl ai m ,

b u t award ed M a r t i n d a m a g es on h is cl ai m s fo r b reach of fi d u ci ary d u t y , p u n i t i v e

d am ag es , an d at t o rn ey fees

. W i m p y n o w ap p eal s , co n t en d in g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred

i n en t eri n g ju d g m en t i n fav o r o f M art i n b ecau s e (1 ) th e cl ai m fo r b reach o f fi d u ci ary

d u t y was (a) u n s up p o rt ed by t h e ev i d en c e i n t h a t i t co u l d n ot b e b ro ug h t as an

i n d ep en den t t o rt s ep arat e f r o m t h e b reach o f co n t ract cl ai m , an d (b ) b arred b y t h e

eco n om i c l o ss ru l e; (2 ) t h e cl ai m fo r p u n i ti v e d am ag es was b arred b ecau s e t h ere was

n o p red i cat e to rt cl ai m ; an d (3 ) t he award o f at t orn ey fees was u n s up p o rt ed b y t h eev i d en ce. Fo r t he fo l l owi n g reas o n s , we affi rm t h e ju dg m en t as t o Mart i n ’ s cl ai m s fo r

b reach o f fi d uci ary d u ty an d p u n i t i v e d am ag es , b u t rev ers e th e award o f at to rn ey fees

fo r l ack o f s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce.

“ W e m u st affi rm a ju ry ’ s v erd i ct t h at h as t h e ap p ro v al o f t he t ri al co urt i f t h ere

i s an y ev i d en ce t o s u pp o rt i t b ecau s e t h e ju ro rs are t h e s o l e an d ex cl u s i v e ju d g es o f

t h e wei g h t an d c red i t g i ven t h e ev i d en ce.” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .)

Hen sl ey v. Hen r

y , 2 4 6 Ga. Ap p . 4 1 7 , 4 1 9 (1 ) (5 4 1 SE2 d 3 9 8) (2 00 0 ).

So v iewed

, t he reco rd s h o ws t hat W i m p y , M art i n , an d An n e Vai l en tered i n to

a wri t ten p art n ers h i p ag reem en t t o p erfo rm wo rk o n a co n s tru ct i on p ro ject i n El l i

jay

,

Geo rg i a, fro m wh i ch t hey wo u l d each sh are eq u al l y i n t he l o s s e s an d pro fi t s o f t h e

p ro ject

. 1 By o ral ag reem en t

, t h ey e x t en d ed t h e p art n ers h i p t o i n cl u de an ad d i t i o n al

co n st ru ct i o n p ro

ject i n Fi t zg eral d

, Geo rg ia. U n d er t h e ag reem en t

, Vai l wo u l d h an d l e

t h e b i dd i n g p ro ces s an d o v eral l p ro ject m an ag em en t ; M art i n wo u l d p ro v i d e th e l ab o r

an d m an ag e t h e act ual co ns t ru ct i o n wo rk fo r b o t h p ro ject s; an d W i m

p y w o u ld

m an ag e t h e fi n an ces

. Al th ou g h M art i n was read y an d ab l e t o carry o u t h i s o b li g at i on s

u n d er t h e p art n ers h i p ag reem en t

, W i m p y refu s ed t o al l o w M art i n ’ s co n s tru ct i o n crew

1 Vai l al s o s u ed W i m

p y fo r u n p ai d p ro fi t s , b u t s h e i s n o t a p art y t o t h i s ap p eal

.

2t o d o s o an d i n s t ead i n s t al l ed h i s o wn crew o n t h e jo b s

. At t h e co m p l et i o n o f t h e

p ro ject s, W i m

p y d id n o t t en d er M art i n ’ s o n e-t h i rd s hare o f t h e g ro s s p ro fi t s

.

M art i n s u ed W i m

p y fo r t h e u np a i d p ro fi t s fro m t he p ro ject s , as sert i n g , as i s

re l ev an t t o th i s ap p eal

, cl ai m s fo r b reach of co n t ract

, b reach o f fi d u ci ary d u t y ,

p u n i t i v e d am ag es , an d at t orn ey fees . Du ri n g t h e fi rs t p has e o f a b i fu rcat ed t ri al , t h e

ju ry en t ered a verd i ct i n fav o r o f W i m p y o n t h e b reach of co n t ract cl ai m , b u t i n fav o r

o f M art i n o n t h e b r e ach o f fi d u ci ary d u t y cl ai m , an d award ed hi m $ 1 96 ,5 6 6 .0 6 in

d am ag es

. Th e ju ry al s o fo un d t h at M art i n was en t i tl ed t o p u ni t i v e d a m a g es an d

a t t o rn ey fees

, p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1

. In t h e seco n d p h as e o f t ri al

, t h e j u r y

award ed M art i n $ 9 0 ,0 0 0 in p u n i t i ve d am ag es , an d $ 6 5 ,5 2 2.0 7 i n at t o rn ey fees

. Th e

t ri al co u rt en tered ju d gm en t co n fo rm i n g t o t h e v erd i ct . Th i s ap p eal fo l l owed

.

1

. W i m p y arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n en t e ri n g j u d gm en t on M art i n ’ s

cl ai m fo r b reach of fi d uci ary d u t y b ecau s e t h ere was n o ev id en ce of a b reach o f an y

d u t y ap art fro m t h os e ari s in g fro m t h e co n t ract s , an d t h e eco n o m i c l o ss d o ct ri n e

b arred reco v ery

o n t h i s cl ai m . W e d i s ag ree.

(a) W i m py arg u es t h at t h e ev i d en ce was i n su ffi ci en t t o su p po rt t h e i n d ep en d en t

t o rt o f b reach o f fi d u ci ary d u t y wh ere t h e ju ry fo u n d t h ere was n o b reach o f co n t ract

.

Th i s arg u m en t i s wi t h o u t m eri t.

3As we h av e ex p l ai n ed

,

[i ] t i s ax io m at i c t h at a s i n g l e act o r co u rs e o f co n d u ct m ay co ns t i t u te n o t

o n l y a b reach o f co nt ract b u t an i n dep en d en t to rt as wel l, i f i n ad d i t i o n

t o vi o lat in g a co n t ract o bl i g at i o n i t al s o v i o l at es a d u t y o w ed t o p l ai n ti ff

i n d ep en d en t of co n tract t o av o i d harm in g h i m

. B u t w h i l e a t o rt act i o n

can n o t b e b as ed o n t h e b reach o f a co nt ract u al d u ty o n l y , i t can b e b as ed

o n co n d u ct wh i ch

, in ad d i t i on t o b reach i n g a d u ty i m p o s ed b y co n t ract

, al s o b reach es a d u t y

i m p o s ed b y l aw.

(Ci t at i o n s an d pu n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed .) No r t h wes t Pl a z a

, L L C (MI) v. No r t h ea s t

En t er p ri s es

, In c

. , 3 0 5 Ga. Ap p. 1 8 2

, 1 9 1 -1 9 2 (3 ) (b ) (6 99 SE2 d 4 1 0 ) (2 0 1 0 ); s ee al s o

OCGA § 5 1-1 -8 (“ Pri v at e d u t i es m ay ari s e fro m s t at u t e o r fro m rel at i on s creat ed by

co n tract

, ex p res s o r i m

pl ied

. Th e v i o l at i o n of a p ri v at e d u t y , acco m p an i ed b y d am ag e,

s h al l g i ve a ri g ht o f act io n .”). An d we h av e fo u n d cl ai m s fo r b reach o f fi d uci ary d u t y

t o be wel l p l ed ev en wh en th ey are d eri v ed fro m l an g u ag e i n a co n t ract . See Ti d iki s

v. Net wo r k f o r Med

. Co mmu n i ca t i o n s & R es ea r ch LLC

, 2 7 4 Ga. Ap p

. 8 0 7

, 8 1 0 (1 )

(6 1 9 SE2 d 4 81 ) (2 0 0 5) (b reach o f fi d uci ary d ut y cl ai m s u rv iv es wh ere t h e ex i s t en ce

o f a co n fi d en t ial rel at io n s h i p b et ween t h e co nt ract i ng part i es m ay b e i n ferred fro m

t h e co n t ract ); cf. S

p ea r s v. M a ck & Ber n st ei n

, P.C.

, 2 2 7 Ga. Ap p. 74 3

, 7 4 5 (2 ) (4 9 0

SE2 d 4 6 3) (1 9 9 7 ) (t o rt fo r b reach o f g oo d fai t h an d f a i r d e a l in g s u rv iv es wh ere a

f i d u ci ary d u t y ari s es fro m p art n ers h i p l an g u ag e i n t h e co n t ract ). As s u ch

, we are

4u n p ers u ad ed b y W im p y ’ s p rem i s e t h at M art i n ’ s b reach o f fi d u ci ary d u t y cl ai m co u ld

n o t b e b ro u g h t as an i n d ep en d en t t o rt

. 2

Tu rn i n g t o t h e s uffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i den ce, M art i n ’ s t h eo ry at t ri al was t h at t h e

p a r t i e s h a d es t ab li s h ed a p art n ers h ip

, an d t h at W i m p y b reach ed t h e d u t i es ari s i n g

fro m t h at rel at i o n sh i p b y refu s i n g t o s h are th e p ro fi ts fl owi n g fro m t h e t w o p ro ject s

.

To es t ab l i s h a t o rt cl ai m fo r b reach of fi du ci ary d u t y, a p l a i n t i ff m us t s h o w

“ (1 ) t h e ex i st e n c e o f a fi du ci ary d u t y ; (2 ) b reach o f t h at d u t y ; an d (3 ) d am ag e

p r o x i m a t e l y cau s ed b y t h e b reach .” (Ci t at i o n an d p un ct u at i o n o m it t ed .) S ch i n a z i v.

Ed en , 3 3 8 Ga. Ap p

. 7 9 3

, 7 9 8 (3 ) (a) (7 9 2 SE2 d 9 4) (2 0 1 6 ). “ W i t ho u t q u es t i o n,

p art n ers o we a fi d u ci ary d u t y t o o n e an ot h er.” (Ci t at i o ns an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed .)

Id

. Th u s , t o s a t i s f

y t h e fi rs t el em en t o f h i s cl ai m , M art i n was req u i red t o pro v e t h e

2 W e n o te t h at W i m

p y d id n o t rai se t h i s i s s u e befo re t h e tri al co urt

. H o wev er, b ecau s e h e co u ch ed th i s arg u m en t as a cl ai m fo r i ns u ffi c i e n c y o f t h e ev i d en ce, we ad d res s i t n ev ert h el es s

. See Red mo n v. Da n i el

, 3 3 5 Ga. Ap p

. 1 5 9

, 1 6 3 (1 ), n

. 5 (7 7 9

SE2 d 7 78 ) (2 01 5 ) (“ a p art y i s free t o co n t e n d o n a p p eal t h at t h e ev i den ce i s i n s u ffi ci en t t o su p p ort a verd i ct ev en i f t h e p art y fai led t o m o ve fo r a d irect ed v erd i ct

, a j.n .o .v ., o r n ew t ri al i n t he t ri al co u rt .”) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). In an y

ev en t, ev en i f W i m

p y were t o p rev ai l o n t h i s i s s u e, h e w o u l d be en t i t led t o a new t ri al

,

an d n ot t o a d i rect ed v erd i ct i n h i s fav o r. Al dwo r t h Co

., In c. v. En gl an d

, 2 81 Ga. 1 9 7,

1 9 9 (2 ) (6 3 7 SE2 d 1 98 ) (2 0 0 6 ).

5ex i s t en ce o f a part n ers h ip

. See Ti d i ki s , 2 7 4 G a. Ap p

. at 8 1 0 (1 ) (“ Th e ex i s t en ce o f a

co n fi d en t i al rel at i o n sh i p i s g en eral l y a ju ry q u es t i on .”).

A p art n ers h i p can res u l t fro m a co n tract

, wh i ch m ay b e ei t h er ex p res s o r i m p l i ed

. Fact o rs t h at in di cat e t he ex is t e n c e o f a p art n ers h ip in cl ud e a

co m m o n en t er p r i s e , th e s h ari n g of ri s k

, t h e s hari n g o f ex p en s es , th e

s h ari n g o f p ro fi ts an d l o s s es , a jo i n t ri g ht o f co nt ro l o v er t he b us i n es s ,

an d a j o in t o wn ers h i p o f cap i t al

. Bu t t h e tru e t es t t o d et erm i n e wh et h er

a p art n ers h i p h as b een creat ed i s t he i nt en t i o n of t he part i e s

. T h e l an g uag e wh i ch t h e p art ies u s ed in m ak i n g t h e co nt ract i s t o b e l o o k ed

t o in d et erm i n i n g wh at t h ei r i n t en t i o n was , wh i ch wh en as cert ai n ed wi l l

p rev ai l o ver al l o t her co n s i d erat i on s

.

(Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i on o m i t t ed .) An t o sko w & As s o c s

. , L L C v. Gr eg o r y , 2 7 8 Ga.

Ap p . 4 6 8 , 4 7 0 (6 2 9 SE2 d 1 ) (2 0 0 5 ).

Here, t h ere was s u ffi ci en t ev i den ce fo r t h e ju ry t o f i n d t h e f o r m at i o n o f a

p art n ers hi p

. Th e wri tt en part n ers h i p ag reem en t reg ard i n g t h e El l i jay p ro ject was

ad m i t t ed at t ri al an d p u bl i s h ed t o t h e j u ry

. Bo t h M art i n an d Vai l tes t ifi ed t o t h ei r

i n t en t t o en t er i n to t h e p art n ers h i p

. An d t hey t es ti fi ed t h at t h ey wo u l d s h are i n t h e

p ro fi ts an d co s t s o f t h e p ro ject s u n d er t h e p art n ers h i p

. No t ab ly

, W i m p y ad m i t t ed t h at

t h e p art i es en tered i nt o a p art n ers h i p i n i t i al l y , b ut s t at ed t hat th e rel at i o n s h i p ch an g ed

o v er t im e. Th u s, t here was s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce fro m w h i ch t h e ju ry co u l d d et erm i n e

t h e fo rm at i o n o f a p a r t n e r s h i p

. An t o s ko w & As s o cs

., LLC, 2 7 8 Ga. Ap p

. at 4 7 0

. To

t h e e x t e n t t h at th ere was a co n fl i ct i n t h e t es ti m o n y , i t was “ fo r th e ju ry to w e i g h

6wi t n es s cred i b i l i t y an d t o res ol v e s u ch co nfl i ct s i n t h e ev i d en ce.” Y o u n g v. Geo r

g ia

Ag r icu lt u r a l

Exp o s i t i o n Au t h

. , 3 1 8 Ga. Ap p . 2 4 4 , 2 4 9-2 5 0 (7 3 3 SE2 d 5 2 9 ) (2 0 1 2).

As t o t h e s eco n d an d t h i rd el em en t s o f t h e cl ai m , i t i s u n d i s p ut ed t h at M art in

was n ot p ai d

. An d t h ere was ev id en ce of t h e g ro s s p ro fi ts fro m t h e two p ro ject s , fro m

wh i ch t h e ju ry

co ul d m eas u re th e d am ag es

. As s u ch

, t h e ev id en ce w a s s u ffi ci en t to

es t ab l i s h t h at W i m

p y b reach ed h i s fi d u ci ary d u t y t o Mart i n

. S ch i n az i

, 3 38 Ga. Ap p.

at 7 9 8 (3 ) (a).

(b ) W i m p y n ex t co n t en d s t h at t h e breach o f fi du ci ary d u ty cl ai m is p recl u d ed

as a m at t er o f l aw by t h e eco n o m i c l os s d o ct ri ne. 3 Ho wev er, W im py n ev er rai s ed t h i s

arg u m en t b efo re t h e t ri al co u rt

, an d i t i s t h u s w ai v ed

. See Pf ei f f er v. Geo r g i a Dep t

.

o f Tr a n s p

. , 27 5 Ga. 8 2 7

, 8 2 9 (2 ) (5 7 3 S E2 d 3 89 ) (2 0 0 2 ); Cr i p p en v. Ou t b ack

S t ea kh o us e In t l

., L.P.

, 3 2 1 Ga. Ap p

. 1 6 7

, 1 7 0 (1 ) (7 41 SE2 d 2 8 0 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (“ Is s u es

p res en t ed fo r t h e fi rs t t i m e o n ap p eal fu rn i s h n o t h in g fo r u s to rev i ew, fo r t h i s is a

c o u r t fo r co rrect i o n o f erro rs o f l aw co m m i t t ed b y th e tri al co urt w here p r o p e r

3 Th e eco n o m i c lo s s do ct ri n e “ g en eral l y p ro vi d es th at a co n t ract i ng p art y wh o

s u ffers p u rel y eco n om i c l o s s es m u s t seek h i s rem ed y i n co nt ract an d n o t i n t o r t .” (Ci t at i o n s o m i tt ed .) D.J. Po wer s Co

., In c. v. Pea ch tr ee P l a yt h i n gs

, In c ., 3 4 8 Ga. Ap p. 2 4 8 , 2 5 4 (1 ) (8 2 0 SE2 d 2 17 ) (2 0 1 8 ).

7ex cep t i o n i s t ak en

. On e m ay n o t ab an d o n an i s s ue i n t h e t ri al co u rt an d o n ap p eal

rai s e q u es t i o n s o r i s s u es n ei t h er rai s ed n o r ru l ed o n b y t h e t ri al co u rt .”) (ci t at i o n

o m it t ed ). Acco rd i ng l y , we d o n o t co n s i d er t h i s cl ai m

.

2

. W i m p y arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n award in g M art i n p u n i t iv e d am ag es

b ecau s e t h ere was n o p r e d i c at e to rt

. 4 In l ig h t o f o u r ru l i n g i n D i vi s i o n 1 (a), t h i s

arg u m en t fai l s

. See Cr o s b y v. Ken d a l l

, 2 4 7 Ga. Ap p

. 8 4 3

, 8 4 8 (2 ) (b ) (5 4 5 SE2 d 3 8 5 )

(2 0 0 1) (“ It i s cl ear t h at a breach o f a fi d u ci ary d u t y m ay war r a n t t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f

p u n i t i v e d am ag es .”).

3

. Fi n al l y , W i m

p y ch al len g es t h e tri al co u rt ’ s en t ry o f j u d gm en t award i n g

M art i n ’ s at t o rn ey fees

, co n t en d i n g t h at t h ere w as i n s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce to su p p o rt t h e

am ou n t o f t h e award

, an d t h e fees were n o t b as ed s ol el y o n t h e p r e v a i l in g cl ai m s

.

Becau s e we ag ree th at t h e ev i d en ce o f t h e am o u n t o f at to rn ey fees was i ns u ffi ci en t

,

we rev ers e t h e award o f at t o rn ey fees i n t h i s cas e.

4 W i m p y al s o co n t en d s t h at t h ere was n o b as i s fo r t h e p u ni t i v e d am ag e award

b ecau s e t h e ju ry ’ s u n d erl y i n g award o f $ 9 0 ,0 0 0 was fo r o n e-t h i rd o f t he pro fi t s , an d

was t h u s an award fo r co n t ract d am ag es

. He ci t es t o n o au t h o ri t y fo r t h i s p ro p o s i t i o n. M o reo v er, i n l i g h t o f o u r ru l in g i n Di v i s i o n (1 ) (a), M art in was en t i t l ed t o d am ag es fo r b reach o f fi d u ci ary d u ty

. W e can n o t s ay t h at t h e j u ry ’ s m eas u re of d am ag es was

u n reas o nab l e i n l ig ht o f t h e ev i d en ce t h at t h e p ro fi t s o f t h e p art n ers h i p were i n t en d ed

t o b e s p li t t h ree way s . See OCGA § 5 1 -1 2 -4

.

8(a) W e wi l l affi rm an award o f at t o rn ey fees u n d er OCGA § 1 3

- 6

- 1 1 i f t h ere

i s an y ev i d en ce t o s u p p ort i t

. P a t t o n v. Tu r n a g e , 2 6 0 Ga. Ap p

. 74 4

, 7 4 7 (2 ) (5 8 0

SE2 d 6 0 4 ) (2 0 03 ). “ Bu t an award o f at t o rn ey fees i s u n au t ho ri zed i f ap p el l ee fai l ed

t o p r o v e t h e act u al co s t s o f t h e at t o rn ey an d th e reas o n ab l en es s o f t h o se co s t s .”

(Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Ha g an v. Keyes

, 3 2 9 Ga. Ap p

. 1 7 8

, 1 81 (4 ) (7 6 4

SE2 d 4 2 3) (2 0 1 4). As o u r Su p rem e Co u rt h as ex p l ai n ed

,

A co u rt m ay co n s i d er a co n ti n g en t fee ag reem e n t an d th e am o u n t i t

wo u ld h av e g en erat ed as ev i d en ce o f u s u a l a n d cu s t o m ary fees i n d et erm i ni n g bo t h t h e reas o nab l en es s an d t h e am o u n t of an a w a r d o f

a t t o r n e y fees

. W hen a p art y s eek s fees b as ed o n a co n t in g en t f e e

ag reem e n t

, h o wev er, th e p art y m u s t s h o w t h at t h e co n t i n gen cy fee

p ercen t ag e was a u s u a l o r cu s t o m ary fee fo r s u ch cas e an d t hat th e

co n t in g en cy fee was a v al i d i n d i cat o r o f t he v al u e o f t he p ro fes s i o nal

s erv ices ren d ered

. In ad d i t i o n, t h e p a rt

y s eeki n g f

ees mu s t a l

s o
i n t r o d u ce evi d en ce of ho ur

s

, r at es

, or s o me o t h er i n di ca t i o n o f t h e va lu e

o f t h e p r o fes si o na l s er vi ces a ct u a ll

y r en der ed

.

(Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ; em p has i s s u pp l i ed .) Geo r

g i a Dep t

. o

f Co r r ect i on s

v. Co u ch , 2 9 5 Ga. 4 6 9 , 4 8 3 (3 ) (a) (7 5 9 SE2 d 8 04 ) (2 0 1 4).

Du ri n g t h e in i t i al ph as e of t h e tri al

, t he ju ry d et erm i n ed t h at at t o rn ey fees were

warran t ed u n d er OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1

. 5 In th e s eco n d p h as e o f t h e t ri al

, M art in cal l ed as

5 OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1 p ro v id es fo r t h e reco v ery o f at t o rn ey fees if t h e d efen d an t

“ h a s a c t e d i n b ad fai t h

, h as b een s tu b b orn l y l i t i g i o u s , o r h as cau s ed t h e p l ai n t i ff

u n n eces sary t ro u bl e an d e x p en s e.” W i m py d o es n o t ch al l en g e th e ev i d en ce

s u p p ort i n g t h e ju ry ’ s fi n d i n g t h at fees were reco v erab l e u n d er t hi s p ro vi si o n

.

9a wi t n es s a s eas o n ed at t o rn ey wh o was n o t in v o l v ed i n t h e cas e, an d wh o o pi n ed t h at

a co n ti n g en cy fee b as ed on o n e-t h i rd o f t h e g r o s s d a m ag es was reas o n ab l e i n t h i s

cas e. Ho wev er, n o wri tt en co n t i n g en cy ag reem en t was p ro ffered d u ri n g t h e s eco n d

p h as e o f t h e t ri al

, an d n ei t h er M art i n n o r h i s at to rn ey t es ti fi ed t o t h e t erm s o f an y s u ch

arran g em en t

. No t ab l y , M art i n ’ s at t o rn ey d i d n ot t es ti fy at al l

, an d n o o t her ev i d en ce

was i n t ro d u ced at t ri al reg ard i ng h is h o u rs , rat es , o r an y o th er in d i cat o r o f t h e v al u e

o f h i s s erv i ces

. Geo r

gi a Dep t. of Co rr ect i o n s , 2 95 Ga. at 4 8 3 (3 ) (a); co m p are Br ock

Bu i l t

, LLC v. B l a ke

, 3 16 G a. A p p

. 7 1 0

, 7 15 (2 ) (b ) ( 7 3 0 S E2 d 1 8 0 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (t ri al

co u ns el t es t i fi ed t o t h e t erm s o f t h e co n t in g en cy ag reem en t an d s u bm i t t ed h i s b i l l s ).

As s u ch

, t h e ev i d en ce was i n s u f f i ci en t t o s u p p o rt th e am o u n t o f t he at t o rn ey fees

award ed t o M art i n , an d we are co n s t rai n ed t o rev ers e th e award

. See Hu g h es v. Gr ea t

S o u t h er n Mi dwa

y, In c

. , 2 65 Ga. 9 4

, 9 5 (1 ) (4 54 SE2 d 1 30 ) (1 9 9 5 ); Ha g a n , 3 2 9 Ga.

A p p

. at 1 8 2 (4 ); P r a in i t o v. Smi t h

, 3 15 Ga. Ap p. 7 9 1

, 7 9 5 -9 6 (4 ) (7 28 SE2 d 3 0 9 )

(2 0 1 2).

(b ) Becau s e we rev ers e t h e award o f at t o rn ey fees , we d o n o t reach W i m p y ’ s

rem ai n i n g arg u m en t

.

10In s u m m ary , w e affi rm t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s en t ry o f j u d gm en t wi t h reg ard to

M art i n ’ s b re a c h of fi d uci ary d u t y an d p u n it i ve d am ag es cl ai m s , b ut rev ers e t h e

ju d g m en t wi t h reg ard t o t h e award o f at t o rn ey fees

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r med i n p a r t

, a n d r ever

s ed i n p a r t

. Rees e, P. J., a n d Co l vi n , J.,

co n cu r

.

11