THI RD DI VI SI ON

M C FA DDEN, C. J.

, D OYLE, P. J.

, and HODGES, 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.

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

.

October 5, 2020



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 0 A1 36 7 . PHILLIPS et al . v . HARRIS et al

.

H O D G E S , J u d g e.

In t h i s l e g a l m al p ract i ce cas e, Nap ol eo n Harri s an d T hi n k W i s er, In c.

(co l l ect i v el y “ H arri s ”) so u g h t reco very ag ai n st at t o rn ey Am el i a Ph i l li p s an d Ph i l l i p s

Law, LLC (co l lect i v el y “ Ph i l l i p s ”), al l eg in g t hat h er fai l u re t o p ro perl y arg u e h i s

en t i t l em en t t o a s t at u to ry t reb l e d am ag es ex em pt i o n d u ri n g a l an d lo rd -t en an t act i o n

cau s ed h im to b e wro n g fu l l y l iab l e. S e e O C G A § § 4 4 -7 -3 5 (c), 4 4-7 -3 6

. Th e ju ry

fo u n d i n fav o r of Harri s an d award ed $ 8 ,4 75 .0 0 i n d am ag es an d $5 ,0 0 0

. 0 0 i n at t o rn ey

fees an d ex p en s es

, an d t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered ju d g m en t acco rd i n g l y

. Ph i l l i p s n o w

as s ert s

, i n s o m ewh at o v er l a p p i n g en u m erat i o n s o f erro r, t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred

b ecau s e s h e m et t h e ap p ro p ri at e s t an d ard o f care i n h er rep res en t at io n o f Harri s an d

t h e ev i d en ce was in s u ffi ci en t t o s h ow s h e p ro x i m at el y cau sed Harri s ’ d am ag es ; s h eal s o co n t en d s t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n d en y i n g h e r m o t i o n s fo r ju d g m en t

n o t wi t h s t an d i n g t h e v erd i ct an d fo r d irect ed v erd i ct . W e d i s ag ree an d affi rm

.

Th e i n i t i al d i s p u t e bet ween th e part i es i s o u t l i n ed i n an un p u b l i sh ed o p i n i o n

ren d ered b y t h i s Co u rt i n t h e lan d l ord -t en an t cas e t h at u n d erl ies Harri s ’ cl ai m s o f

l eg al m a l p ract i ce. Th i n k W i s er

, In c. v. Bo wen

, 3 3 5 Ga. Ap p

. XXX (Cas e No

.

A1 5 A2 08 9 ) (2 0 1 6). H arri s o w n ed a ren t al h o u s e t h at h e l eas ed t o t e n a n t s

. In 2 0 1 4,

t h e t en an t s s u ed Harri s an d hi s s o lel y o wn ed co m p an y

, T h i n k W i s er, al l eg i n g t h at

aft er t h ey m o ved o u t

, h e wro n gfu l l y wi t h h el d t hei r s ecu ri t y d ep o s i t an d was t h erefo re

l i ab l e fo r s t at u t o ry t reb le d am ag es an d at t o rn ey fees

. Harri s co n ten d ed t h at th e t en an t s

h ad d am ag ed t h e h o m e s uch t h a t h e was ju s t ifi ed i n ret ai n i n g t h e d ep os i t

. He al s o

co u nt ercl ai m ed f

or d am ag es

. Th e m ag i s t rat e co u rt fo u nd i n fav o r o f th e t en an t s

. Th i n k

W i s er

, 3 3 5 Ga. Ap p. at 3-4

. Harri s t h en h i red Ph il l ip s an d h er law fi rm t o h an d l e h i s

a p p e a l t o s u peri o r co u rt

, wh ere t h e t en an t s ag ai n arg u ed t h at H arri s wro n g fu l l y

wi t h h el d t h ei r s ecu ri t y dep o s i t

, en t i t l in g t h em t o s t at ut o ry t reb l e dam ag es

. Aft er a

b en ch t ri al

, t h e s u p eri o r co u rt fo u n d i n t he t en an ts ’ fav o r. Harri s m o v ed fo r

reco n s i d erat i on an d t o v ac a t e a n d s et as i d e t h e ju d g m en t

, arg u i n g

, am o n g o t h er

t h i n g s

, t h at h e w as st at ut o ri ly ex em p t ed fro m t reb l e d am ag es

. Id

. at 4

. Th e t ri al co u rt

d en ied H arri s ’ m o t i o n s

, an d t h i s Co urt g ran t ed Harri s ’ d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal

. Id

. at 4 -5

.

2As t h i s Co u rt n o t ed i n t h at i n i t i al ap p eal

, Th i n k W i s er

, 3 3 5 G a. Ap p

. at 7 -8 (2 ),

t h e ten an t s ’ arg u m en t was b as ed u p o n OC G A § 4 4 -7 -3 5 (c) wh i ch p ro v i d es

, in

p ert i nen t p art

, t h at a l an d l o rd “ wh o fai l s t o ret urn an y p art o f a s ecu ri t y d ep o si t wh i ch

i s req u i red t o b e ret u rn e d t o a t e n a n t p u rs u an t to t h i s art i cl e s h al l be l i ab l e t o t h e

t en an t i n t h e am o u n t o f t hree t i m es t h e s u m i m p ro p erl y wi t h h el d p l u s reas o n ab l e

at t o rn ey ’ s fees [.] ” Ho wev er, t h e t reb l e d am ag es p ro v i s i o n

s h al l n o t ap p l y t o ren t al u n i t s wh i c h a r e o wn ed b y a n at u ral pers o n i f

s u ch n a t u ral p ers on

. . . o wn [s ] t en o r fewer ren t al u ni t s ; pro v i d ed

,

h o we v er, t h at t h is ex em p t i o n d o es n ot ap p ly t o u n i t s fo r wh ich

m an ag em en t

, in cl u d i n g ren t co l l ect io n

, i s perfo rm ed b y t h i rd p ers o ns

,

n at u ral o r o t h erwi s e, fo r a fee.

OCGA § 4 4 -7 -3 6

.

Th i s Co urt affi rm ed th e s u p eri o r co u r t

, fi n d i n g t h at Harri s d i d n o t p ro p erl y

rai s e a s t at u t o ry ex em

p t i on arg u m en t un t il t h e m o t i o n fo r reco n s i d erat i on s t ag e, aft er

t h e t r i a l c o u rt had ren d ered i t s ju d g m en t. Th i n k W i s er

, 3 35 G a. Ap p

. at 8 (2 ). As a

res u l t, we fo u n d th at “ [ t ]h e i s s u e o f ex em p t i on un d er OCGA § 4 4 -7 -3 6 was n ot

ad eq uat el y p res en t ed to t h e t ri al co u rt

, an d th u s

, t h e co urt ’ s ru l i n g t h at Harri s w as

l i ab l e fo r t reb l e d am ag es di d no t co n s t i t u t e erro r.” Id

. at 8 -9 (2 ). Ph i l l i p s ’ m o t i o n fo r

3reco n s i d erat i on t o t h i s Co u rt an d h i s p et i t io n fo r cert i o rari t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f

Geo rg i a were d en ied

.

Fo l l owi n g t h i s Co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n i n Th i n k W i s er

, H arri s s u ed Ph il l i p s fo r l eg al

m al p ract i ce, arg u i n g th at he was i n ju red b ecau s e s h e fai l ed as h i s at t o rn ey t o p res en t

ev i d en ce t h at h e was ex em p t fro m t h e t reb l e d am ag es p ro v i s i o n

. Aft er a ju ry v erd i ct

i n Harri s ’ fav o r i n t h e m al p ract i ce act i o n , Ph i ll i p s fi l ed t he i ns t an t ap p eal

.

1

. Ph i l l i p s arg ues t h at t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed i n t h e m al p ract i c e a ct i o n was

i n s u ffi ci en t t o s h o w s h e fai l ed t o m eet t h e s t an d ard o f care. W e d is ag ree.

“ In a l eg al m al pract i ce act i o n

, t h e p l ai n t i ff m u s t es t ab l is h t hree el em en t s : (1 )

em pl o y m en t of t h e d efen d an t at t o rn ey ; (2 ) fai lu re o f t h e at to rn ey t o ex erci s e o rd i n ary

care

, s k i l l a n d di li g en ce; an d (3 ) th at s u ch neg l i g en ce was t h e p ro x i m at e cau s e o f

d am ag e t o th e p lai n t i ff.” (Ci t at i o n an d p un ct u at io n om i t t ed .) Lei b el v. Jo h n s o n

, 2 9 1

Ga. 1 8 0

, 1 8 1 (7 2 8 SE2 d 5 5 4 ) (2 0 1 2 ). Ph i ll i ps d o es no t d i s p ut e t h e fi rs t el em en t

, b ut

rat h er d i s p u t es t h e s eco n d an d t h i rd el em en t s i n s o m ewh at co n fl at ed en u m erat i o n s o f

erro r.

[W ] i t h res p ect t o t h e o rd i n ary care, s k i l l an d d i l ig en ce el em en t

, t h e l aw

i m p o s es u p o n p ers o n s p e r fo rm in g p ro fes s i on al serv i ces t he d u t y t o

ex erci s e a reas o n ab l e d eg ree o f s k il l an d care, as d e t e rm in ed b y th e

d eg ree of s k i l l an d care o r d i n ari l y em p l o y ed b y th ei r res p ect iv e

4p r o f

e s s i o n s u n d e r s i m i l a r c o n d i t i o n s a n d l i k e s u r r o u n d i n g

ci rcu m s t an ces

.

(Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed .) Id

. E x p ert tes t i m o n y i s n eces s ary t o es tab l i s h t h i s seco n d el em en t

,

ex cep t i n “ cl ear an d p al pab l e cas es [.] ” Id

.

In t h e i n s t an t cas e, t h e ev i d en ce s ho wed th at i n t h e 2 0 1 5 l an d lo rd -t en an t cas e,

Ph i l l i p s m en ti o n ed i n t wo s en t en ces i n h er o p en i n g arg u m en t t h at Harri s was an

i n d i v i d u al p ro p ert y o w n er wh o m an ag ed t h e p ro pert y h i m sel f a n d was “ i n t h e

ex em p t i o n fo r an y k i n d o f t reb l e d am ag es .” Ph i l l i p s p o i n t s u s t o n o t h i n g in t h e 2 0 1 5

t ran s cri p t

, h o wev er, s h o wi n g t h at s h e pres en t ed an y fu rt h er ar g u m en t

, ev i d en ce o r

t es t i m o ny rel at ed t o Harri s’ q u al i fi cat i o n s fo r t he OCGA § 4 4 -7 -3 6 ex em pt i o n

. No r

d i d sh e ev er i n fo rm t h e t ri al co u rt

, p ri o r t o i t s ren d eri n g ju d g m en t

, of an y l eg al

au t h o ri t y fo r t he “ ex em

p t i o n ” s h e m en t io n ed

, o r ci t e O C GA § 4 4 -7 -3 6 to t h e t ri al

co u rt . See Th i n k W

i s er , 3 3 5 Ga. Ap p . at 8 -9 (2 ).

Ph i l li p s no w co n t en d s t h at t h e 2 0 1 5 t ran s cri p t co nt ai n ed “ b l en d ed wo rd s ” an d

t h at s h e “ i n g o o d fai t h b el iev ed t h at t h e l aw o n ex em p t i o n h ad been p res en t ed t o t h e

[c] o urt su ffi ci en t ly t o m eet an y s t an d ard o f care t o t h e cl i en t

, t h o u g h n o t [] p erfect l y

cl earl y [.] ” At t h e m al p ract i ce t ri al

, Ph il l ip s t e s t i fi ed t h at s h e t ho u gh t sh e g av e t h e

ju d g e “ a p ack e t o f l a w co n t ai n i n g OCGA § 44 -7 -3 6 ,” an d t h at s h e m en t i on ed t h i s

5Co d e s ect i o n at t h e 20 1 5 t ri al b u t “ i t was n ot t ran s cri b ed

. ” Sh e d i rect s u s to an e-m ai l

s h e s en t to Harri s in w h ich s h e s ai d t h at s h e t h o u g ht s h e h ad ci t ed OCGA § 4 4 -7 -3 6

at t ri al

, an d t h at s h e “ recal l [ed ] t he ju d ge wri t i n g t h is co d e s ect i o n d o w n wh i le I

rep eat ed i t t o h i m [.] ” Th e e

- m ai l ack n owl ed g ed t hat t h e t ran s cri pt d o es n o t refl ect

t h i s

.

Ph i l li p s, h owev er, p o i n t s u s t o n o t h i n g i n t h e reco rd i nd i ca t i n g t h at s h e

at t em p t ed t o co rrect t h e 2 01 5 t ran s c r i p t

, d es p it e h er bel i ef t h at i t was i n accu rat e. If

Ph i l l i p s b el i ev ed t he t ran s cri p t o m i t t ed or m i s rep res en t ed a n eces s ary p art o f t h e

p ro ceed in g s

, s he h ad “ t h e res p o n s i b i l i t y t o seek t o co rrect t h e t ran s cri p t i n t h at

res p ect .” Jo h n s o n v. S t a te

, 3 0 2 Ga. 1 8 8

, 1 9 3 (3 ) (a), n

. 7 (8 0 5 SE2 d 89 0 ) (2 0 1 7 ); s ee

al s o S t a t e v. Nej a d

, 2 8 6 Ga. 6 9 5

, 6 9 9 (1 ) (6 9 0 SE2 d 8 4 6 ) (2 0 10 ) (o u t l i n i ng p ro ced u re

b y wh i ch an in co m

p l et e tran s cri p t m ay b e am en d ed an d cert i fi ed ). Fu rt h er, o nce

cert ifi ed b y a co u rt rep o rt er, as i s t h e 2 0 1 5 t ran s cr ip t

, i t i s p res u m ed accu rat e an d

co m p l e t e

. M o r r i s v. S ta t e

, – Ga. Ap p

. – (8 42 SE2 d 45

, 5 0 (2 ), n

. 4 ) (2 0 2 0 ), ci t i n g

OCGA § 1 5 -1 4 -5

.

W i t h reg ard to Ph i l l i p s ’ fai l u re t o p res en t t h e ex em p t i o n arg u m en t ad eq u at el y

,

Harri s p r es en t ed two at t o rn ey -ex p ert wi t n es ses o n t he s ub ject

. Bo t h t es t i fi ed t h at

Ph i l l ip s ’ fai lu re to arg u e t h e s t a t u t o ry ex em p ti o n an d t o p res en t ev i d en ce an d

6t es t i m o ny reg ard i n g Harri s ’ q u a l i f i c at i o n s fo r t h e ex em

p t i o n

, o r to cl ari fy an y

ev i d en t i ary am

b i g u i t ies reg ard in g h i s m an ag em en t o f th e ren t al pro p ert y

, fel l b el o w

t h e s t an d ard o f care fo r Geo rg i a at t orn ey s

.

Fu rt her, t here i s ev i d en ce i n d icat i n g t h at Harri s an d Ph i l li p s d i s cu s s ed h i s

q u al i fi cat i o n s fo r t h e OCGA § 4 4 -7 -3 6 ex em pt i o n, an d th at h e u nd ers t o od s h e wo u ld

b e arg u i n g t h at h e was ex em p t fro m t h e s tat u to ry t reb le dam ag es p ro v i s i o n b ecau s e

OCGA § 4 4 -7 -3 5 “ d o es n o t ap pl y t o m e” g i v en th at he was a n i n d i v i d u a l own er o f

o n l y o n e ren t al p ro p ert y

. See g en eral l y Ber ma n v. R ub i n

, 1 3 8 Ga. Ap p

. 8 4 9

, 8 5 2 (2 2 7

SE2 d 8 0 2 ) ( 1 9 7 6 ) (An “ at t o rn ey m ay b reach [h er] d u t y to ward s [h er] cl i en t wh en

,

aft er u n d ert ak i n g t o acco m p l i s h a s p eci fi c res u lt

, . . . [s h e] t h en fai l s t o co m p l y wi th

p r e s c r i b ed s t at u to ry fo rm al i t ies o r t o effect u at e t h e i n t en t o f t h e p art i es

. ”). W e fi n d

n o erro r.

2

. Ph i l l i p s co nt en d s th at t h e t ri al co u rt erred in fai l i n g to g ran t h er m o t i o n s fo r

d i rect ed v erd i ct o r ju d g m e n t n o t wi t hs t an di n g t h e v erd ict in t h e m al pract ice act i o n.

Sh e es s en t ial l y arg u es t h at t h ere w a s i n s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce t o s h o w t h at h er l eg al

rep res en t at i o n p ro x i m at el y cau s ed Harri s t o l o s e an y ex em p t io n arg u m en t , an d as a

res u l t, t h e j u ry was req u i red to s p ecu l at e t h at h er act i on s h ad cau s ed hi s l i ab i l i t y fo r

s t at u to ry t reb l e d am ag es . Ag ai n , we d i sag ree.

7In rai s i n g t h i s arg u m en t

, Ph i l li p s ap p ears t o referen ce t h e t h i rd el em en t o f t h e

Lei b el tes t

, w h i ch req u i res t hat i f a pl ai n t i ff h as es tab l is h ed t h e em p l o y m en t o f t h e

d efen d an t at t orn ey an d t h at at t o rn ey ’ s fai l u re t o ex erci s e o rd i n ary care an d s k i l l

, t h e

p l ai n t i ff m

u s t t h e n s h o w “ t h at s u ch n eg l ig en ce w as th e p ro x i m at e cau s e” o f h i s

d am ag es . 2 9 1 Ga. at 1 8 1

.

“ Th e s t an d ard s fo r g ran t i n g a d i rect ed v erd i ct o r j. n

. o

. v

. a r e i d en t i cal [.] ”

(Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed .) W

h i s p er W ea r

, In c. v. Mo rg a n

, 2 7 7 Ga. Ap p

. 6 0 7

, 6 08 (6 2 7 SE2 d

1 7 8 ) (2 0 0 6 ). A ju dg m en t n . o . v . o r m ot i o n fo r d i rect ed v erd i ct

i s p ro perl y g ran ted o n l y wh en t h ere can b e b u t o n e reas o n ab l e

co n cl u s i o n as t o t h e p ro per ju d g m en t ; i f t h ere i s an y ev i d en ti ary b as i s

fo r t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct

, v i ewi n g t h e ev i d en ce m os t fav o rab l y t o th e p art y

wh o s ecu red t h e v erd i ct

, i t i s n o t er r o r t o d en y t he m o t io n

. . . . If th e

reco rd co nt ai n s an y

ev i den ce u p o n wh i ch t h e v erd ict can be b as ed

, th e

ju ry i s free t o d i sb el i e v e w h a t ev er fact s are i n co ns i s t en t wi t h t h ei r

co n cl u s i o n an d t h e co u rt can n ot s u b s t it u t e i t s co n cl u s i o n fo r th at o f th e

ju ry [.]

(Ci t at i o n s an d pu n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Og let r ee v. Na vi s ta r In t l

. Tr a n s p

. C or p

. , 2 7 1 Ga.

6 4 4 , 6 4 6 -6 4 7 (5 2 2 SE2 d 4 6 7 ) (1 9 9 9 ); s ee al so OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 0 (a), (b ).

“ Pro x i m at e cau s e in a m al p ract i ce act i on r e quir e s a pl ai nt i ff t o d em o n s t rat e t h at

b u t fo r t h e at t o rn ey ’ s erro r, t h e o u t co m e wo u ld h av e b een d i ffer e n t ; a n y l es s er

8req u i rem en t w o u l d in vi t e s p ecu l at i o n an d co n ject u re.” (Ci t at i o n s an d pu n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed .) S

zu ro vy v. Ol d

er ma n

, 2 4 3 G a. A p p

. 4 4 9

, 4 5 2 (5 3 0 SE2 d 7 83 ) (2 0 0 0 ). Gi v en

t h at we fo u n d no erro r i n Di v i s i o n (1 ) reg ard i ng t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n t h at

Ph i l l ip s ’ rep res en t at i o n fel l b el o w t h e s t an d ard o f care, t he n ex t p art o f o u r an al y s i s

t u rn s t o

t h e s o -cal l ed “ s u i t wi t h in a s u i t ,” t o d et erm i n e wh et her t h e cl i en t was

, i n

fact

, d am ag ed b y t h at n eg l i g e n c e

. T h us

, t h e u l t i m at e g o al o f t h e “ s u i t

wi t h in a s ui t ” i s t o det erm i n e wh at t h e o u t co m e s h o u l d h av e b een i f th e

i s su e h ad b een p ro p erl y p res en t e d in t h e fi rs t i n s t an ce. Th at

d et erm i nat i o n

, h o w ev er, d o es n o t req u i re t h at t h e ju ry i n t h e m al p ract i ce

act i o n d et erm i n e w h at t h e act u al [fact fi n d er] i n t h e un d erl y i n g act i o n

wo u ld h av e do n e; rat h er, t h e

. . . ju ry [ i n t h e m al p ract i ce act i o n] i s t o

d et erm i ne wh at a reas o n ab l e [fact fi n d e r ] wo ul d h av e d o n e i f t h e cas e

h ad b een t ri ed d i f

f e r e n t ly

. Th u s

, t h e ju ry i n th e m al p ract i ce act i o n i s

p erm i t t ed t o s u bs t it u t e i t s o wn ju dg m en t fo r t h at o f t h e [fact fi nd er] i n th e

u n d erl y i n g act i o n

.

(Ci t at i o n an d em

p h as i s o m i t t ed .) Lei b el , 2 9 1 Ga. at 1 8 2

.

Ev i d en ce p res en t ed i n t h e m al p ract i ce act i o n rel at ed t o t h e c l a i m s i n t h e

u n d erl y i n g l an d lo rd -t en an t su i t s h o wed th at Harri s o wn ed t h e p ro p ert y at is s u e, an d

i t was h i s o nl y ren tal p r o p ert y

. Harri s u s ed A t l an t a Ren t al Serv i ces (“ ARS”) as a

l i st i n g a g e n t / b ro k er t o fi n d t en an ts an d p rep are l eas es

, b u t Harri s was l i s t ed as t h e

9p ro p ert y ’ s “ o wn er/ m an ag er” i n h i s co n t ract wi t h ARS. Ten an ts p ai d ARS a “ o n et i m e” l is t i ng fee/ s ecu ri t y d ep o s i t

, b u t Harri s d i d n o t p ay ARS o r a n yo n e el s e a

m an ag em en t fee an d ARS was n o t res p o n s i b l e fo r ren t co l l ect i o n . Ren t was p ai d to

Harri s ’ s o l el y -o wn ed co m p an y

, Th i n k W i s er, fo r b o o k k eep i n g an d t ax p urp o s es

, 1 b ut

Harri s d i d n o t p ay Th i n k W i s er an y m an ag em en t fee. Harri s t es t i fi ed t h at h e

perfo rm ed al l p ro p ert y m an ag em en t h i m s el f, i n cl u d i n g h an d l i n g cl ean in g an d r e pa ir s.

Ph i l li p s arg u es t h at t h i s ev i d en ce i s “ am b ig u o u s ” an d req u i red t h e ju ry to

s p ecu l at e. In an ap peal fro m th e t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f a j u d gm en t n

. o

. v

. o r d i rect ed

v erd i ct

, “ we rev i ew an d res o l v e t h e ev i d en ce an d an y d o ub t s o r am b i g ui t i es i n fav o r

o f th e v erd i ct .” (Ci t at i on o m i t t ed .) Lo ma x v. Kr og er Co

. , 3 4 8 G a. Ap p

. 7 26

, 7 2 7 (8 2 4

SE2 d 6 2 9 ) (2 0 1 9). Un d er t h i s s t an d ard

, t h ere was ev i d en ce t h at fi t wi t h i n t h e fact u al

req u i rem en t s fo r ex em

pt i o n fro m t reb l e d am ag es u nd er OCGA § 4 4 -7 -3 6 i n t h at t h ere

was ev i den ce s h o wi n g t h at H arri s i s a “ n at u ral p ers o n,” i s t h e s o l e o wn er o f t h e

p ro p ert y

, m an ag ed t h e p ro p ert y h i m s el f, an d t h at al t h ou g h ren t w as pai d t o h i s s o lel y

o wn ed co m

p an y

, Th i n k W i s er, n ei t h er it no r an y o t h er en t i t y was p ai d a m an ag em en t

fee. As t h ere was ev i den ce su p p o r t i n g t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct wh ich d i d n o t d em an d a

1 Ph i l l i p s arg u ed t h es e fact s

, al b ei t b el at ed l y

, i n h er m o t io n fo r reco n s i d erat i o n

o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ad v ers e ju dg m en t i n t h e l an d l o rd -t en an t cas e.

10d i fferen t v erd ict

, t h e tri al co u rt d i d n o t err i n d en y i n g Ph i l l i p s ’ ju d g m en t n

. o

. v

. an d

m o ti o n fo r a d i rect ed v erd i ct

. Og l et r ee , 2 7 1 Ga. Ap p . at 6 4 6 -6 4 7.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . McFa d

d en , C. J., a nd

Do yl e, P. J., co n cu r

.

11