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

.

M ar ch 4, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 0 A1 96 8 , A2 0 A1 9 69 . RIDGEW ALK HOLDINGS, LLC et al . v

. A T L A N T A A P A R T M E

N T I N V E S T M E N T C O R P O R A T I O N

et al .; an d v i ce v ers a.

R E E S E

, Pres i di n g J u d g e.

In t h i s act i o n t o reco v er a real es tat e b ro k er’ s co m m is si o n

, t h e Su p eri o r Co u rt

o f Co b b Co u n t y d en i ed p art i al s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n cl ai m s o f p ro m i s s o ry es t o p p el

an d qu an t u m m eru i t fi l ed by At l an t a Ap art m en t In v es t m en t Co rp o rat i o n (“ AAI”) an d

Ad v o cat e In ves tm en t s

, LLC, (co ll ect i v e l y, t h e “ Pl ai n t i ffs ”) an d d en ied wi t h o ut

p reju d i ce t h e Pl ai n t i ffs ’ m o t io n t o i n s p e c t t h e b o o ks an d reco rd s o f an LLC u n d er

OCGA § 1 4 -1 1 -3 1 3 (3 ). Al l p art i es h av e ap p eal ed

. Fo r t h e reas o n s s et fo rt h i n fra, we

affi rm t he d en i a l o f th e m o t i on t o i n s p ect

, rev ers e t h e d en i al o f p art i al s u m m ary

ju d g m en t , an d rem an d t h e cas es fo r p ro ceed i n g s n o t i nco n s is t en t wi t h t h i s o p i n i o n

.Th e Pl ai n t i ffs

, real es t at e d ev el o p m en t fi rm s m an ag ed b y n o n

- p art y W i l l i am

Bu t ler, fi l ed t h i s act i o n ag ai n s t Ri d g ewal k Ho l d i n g s

, L L C (“ Ho l d i n gs ”), an d

Ri d g ewal k Pro p ert y In v es t m en t s

, LLC (“ RPI”) (co l l ect i v el y

, th e “ Defen d an t s ”).

Vi ewi n g t h e su m

m ary -ju d g m en t ev i d en ce i n t h e l ig h t m o s t fav orab l e t o t h e Pl ai n t i ffs

,

as t h e n o n -m o v an ts

, 1 th e reco rd s h o ws t h e fo l l o wi n g

. In o r aro un d 2 0 0 0

, H o l d i ng s

acq u ired a l arg e tract o f co m m erci al p ro p ert y i n W o o d s t o ck k n o wn as t h e Ri d g ewal k

Dev el o pm en t

, an d ex ecu t ed an ag reem en t g i v in g Ad v ocat e t he ex cl u s i v e ri g h t t o sel l

p ro p ert y wi t h i n t h e d ev el o p m en t i n ex ch an g e fo r a fi x ed co m m i ss i o n

. Ad vo cat e l at er

as s i g n ed i t s co m

m is s io n ri g h t s u n d er t h e ex cl u s i v e l i s t i n g ag reem en t t o AAI.

In 2 0 0 7

, Ho l di ng s wen t b an k ru p t

. H o l d in g s ret ai n ed t it l e t o Ri d g ewal k

Dev el o pm en t

, b u t a n ew co m pan y

, RPI, w as fo rm ed t o o perat e Ho l d i n g s as p art o f t h e

Ch ap t er 11 res t ru ct u ri n g

. In 2 0 1 2

, RPI t o o k o u t a s ub s tan t i al l o an fro m Ho ri zo n

Gro up Pro p ert ies

, wh i ch o v er t im e acq u ired a co n t ro l l i n g in t eres t i n t h e Defen d an t s

.

Acco rd i ng to t he Pl ai nt i ffs

, i n 2 0 13

, a l o cal b ro k er ap p ro ach ed Bu t l er ab o u t t h e

p o s s i b i l i ty

o f Co s t co b u y i n g a p o rt i o n o f t h e Ri d gewal k Dev el op m en t an d b u i l d i n g

a st o re t h ere. In earl y 2 0 1 4

, Bu t l er co n t act ed a lo cal real es t at e dev el o per, Jeff Fu q ua,

1 See Y as h S o l u t io ns v. New Y

or k Gl o b al Co n s u l t a n t

s Co r p.

, 35 2 Ga. Ap p

. 1 2 7,

1 3 8 -1 3 9 (2 ) (8 3 4 SE2 d 1 2 6 ) (2 0 1 9 ).

2wh o h ad p ri o r ex p eri en ce wi t h Co s t co -an ch o red d ev el o p m en t s

. A ft er a pe r i o d o f

n eg ot i at i on s

, Fu q u a s ig n ed a n on -b i n d i n g l et t er o f in t en t o u t l i n i ng a d eal i n w h i ch h e

wo u l d h el p Co s t co p u rch as e an d d ev el o p t h e p ro p ert y

. In Ap ri l 2 0 14

, Ho ri zo n (wh i ch

n o w co nt ro l l ed RPI/ Ho l di ng s ) p ro po s ed a m o d i fi cat i o n t o t h e d eal t h at wo u ld req u i re

Bu t ler t o wai v e t h e Pl ai nt iffs ’ b ro k erag e co m m i s s i o n. Bu t l er refu s ed

.

Acco rd i ng t o t he Pl ai nt i ffs

, Ho ri zo n b eg an freezi n g Bu t ler o ut o f t he d eal i n t h e

s u m m er o f 2 0 14 b y p rev en ti n g h i m fro m part i ci p at i ng i n fu rt h er Fu q u a/ Co s t co

n eg ot i at i on s

. In Au g us t 2 0 1 5

, Fu q u a ab an d o n ed t h e d eal

. In Oct o b er 2 0 1 5

, Ho ri zo n

an d Co s t co en t ered i n t o a b i n d i n g p u rch as e ag reem en t, an d t h e tran s act i o n was

f i n a l i zed i n 2 01 7

. Nei t h er Ho ri zo n n o r t h e Defen d an ts ev er p ai d an y b ro k e r a g e

co m m i s s io n s i n co n n ect i o n wi t h t h e s al e.

Th e Pl ai n t i ffs fi led s u i t t o reco v er a b ro kerag e co m m i ss i o n u n d er t h eo ri es o f

p ro m i s s o ry es t o pp el an d q u an t u m m eru i t. Th e Defen d an ts s o ug h t s u m m ary ju d g m en t

o n t hes e cl ai m s on t he g ro u n d t h a t t h e Pl ai n t iffs were n o t en ti t led t o a co m m i s s i o n

b ecau s e t h ey were no t t h e “ p ro cu ri n g cau s e” o f t h e Co s tco d eal

. Th e Defen d an t s al s o

arg u ed t h at th e Pl ai n t i ffs were i n el i g i b l e fo r co m m i ss i o ns b ec a u s e t h ei r b ro k erag e

l i cen ses h ad l ap s ed b efo re t h e Oct o b er 2 0 1 5 co n t ract was s i g n ed

.

3Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e Defen d an t s ’ s u m m ary ju d g m en t m o t i o n. Th e co u rt

r e j ect ed t h e Defen d an t s ’ “ p ro cu ri n g cau s e” arg u m en t, fi n di n g t h at “ [a] q u es t i o n o f

fact ex i s t [ed ] as t o wh et h er M r. Bu t l er, Ad v ocat e, an d/ o r AAI wo ul d h av e co n t i n u ed

t o n eg ot i at e an d arran ge fo r Co s t c o ’s p u r ch as e o f p ro p ert y in th e Ri d g ewal k

Dev el o pm en t b u t fo r Ho ri zo n ’ s i n t erferen ce

. ” Th e co u rt d id n o t ad d res s t h e

Defen d an t s ’ l ap sed -l i c e nse s a r gum e nt. T h e t r ia l co urt cert ifi ed i ts o rd er fo r i m m ed i at e

rev i ew, an d we g ran t ed t h e Defen d an t s ’ ap p li cat i o n fo r i n t erl ocu t o ry ap p eal

.

“ Th i s Co u rt rev iews d e n o v o a g ran t o r d en i al o f s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, v i ewi n g

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

m o st fav o rab l e t o t h e n o n m o v an t

. Su m m ary ju d g m en t i s p ro p er wh en t h ere i s n o

g en ui n e i s s u e of m at eri al fact an d t h e m o van t i s en t i t l ed to ju d g m e n t a s a m at t er o f

l aw.” 2 Fu rt h er, “ th e i nt erp ret at i o n o f a s t at u te i s a q u es ti o n o f l aw, wh i ch is rev i ewed

d e n o vo o n ap p eal .” 3 W i th th es e g u i d i ng p ri nci p l es in m i n d

, we t u r n n o w t o t h e

p art i es ’ cl ai m s o f erro r.

2 F i ve St a r At h l et e M

g mt

. v. Da vi s

, 3 5 5 G a. Ap p

. 7 74

, 7 7 5 (8 4 5 SE 2 d 7 5 4 )

(2 0 2 0) (ci t at i o n s an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

3 Ha r r i s v. Ma ho n e

, 3 40 Ga. Ap p

. 4 1 5

, 41 7 (1 ) (7 9 7 SE2 d 6 8 8 ) (2 0 1 7 )

(p u n ct u at i o n an d fo o t n o t e o m i t t ed ).

41

. In Cas e No

. A2 0 A1 9 6 8

, t h e Defen d a n t s a r g ue t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred in

d en y i n g t h ei r m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t b ecau s e Geo rg i a l aw b ars b ro k ers fro m

reco v eri n g co m

m i s s i on s i f t hey were u nl i cen s ed wh en th ei r cau se o f act i on aro s e. W e

ag ree.

Geo rg i a’ s ru l es g o v ern i n g real es t at e b ro k ers e x i s t “ t o p ro v i d e p u b l i c

p ro t ect i o n t h ro u g h t h e reg u l at i o n o f t h e act iv i ti es o f t h e b ro k ers

. ” 4 On e o f t h es e ru l es

i s t h at a b ro k er m ay n o t b ri n g an act i o n t o co l l ect a co m m i s s i o n wi t h o u t al l eg i n g an d

p ro v in g t h at h e an d an y o n e act i n g o n h i s b eh al f “ was d u ly l i cen s ed i n Geo rg i a a t t h e

t i m e t h e a l l eg ed ca u se of a ct i o n a r o s e .” 5 T h is p ri n ci p l e ap p l i es eq u al l y to q u as i

co n tract ual cl ai m s

. 6

4 N o r th si d e R ea l t y As s o c. v. MPI Co r

p

. , 2 4 5 Ga. 32 1

, 32 2 (2 6 5 SE 2 d 1 1 )

(1 9 8 0).

5 OCGA § 4 3 -4 0 -2 4 (a) & (b ) (em p has i s su p p l i ed ); s ee al s o Jo hn s on v. Or i en t al

W ea ver s Ru g Mf g

. Co

. , 24 1 Ga. Ap p

. 15 (5 2 5 SE2 d 7 3 8 ) (1 9 9 9 ) (“ A p ers o n d o i n g

b u s i n es s in Geo rg i a wi t h o u t t he req u i si t e real es t at e l i cen s e h as n o s t an d i n g t o s u e fo r

co m m i s s io n s al l eg ed l y

earn ed .”).

6 See D.L. S t o kes & Co

. v. McCo y

, 2 1 2 Ga. 78

, 7 8 -7 9 (2 ) (9 0 SE2 d 4 04 ) (1 9 5 5 ).

5Th u s , t h e Pl ai n t i ffs were en t i t l ed t o reco v er u np ai d co m m i ss i o ns o n ly

i f t h ey

(an d Bu t l er, as t hei r ag en t ) w ere d u l y li cen s ed wh en t h ei r cau s e o f act i o n aro s e. 7 Th e

i s su e i n t h i s cas e i s wh en t h e Pl ai n t i ffs ’ cau s e o f act i o n aro s e. Th e Pl ai n ti ffs m ai n t ai n

t h at t h ei r cau s e o f act i o n aro se wh en t h e Defen d an t s b eg an ex cl u d i n g t hem fro m t h e

Fu q u a/ Co s t co n eg o t i at i o n s i n t h e su m m er o f 2 0 1 4

— wh i l e t h ey an d Bu tl er s t i l l h ad

act i v e l icen s es

. 8 Th e Defen d an t s

, o n t h e o th er h an d

, arg ue t hat t h e Pl ai n ti ffs ’ cau s e

o f act i o n aro s e, at th e earl i es t

, i n Oct o b er 2 0 1 5 wh en C o s t c o s i g n ed a b i n d i n g

p u rch as e ag reem en t w it h Ho ld i n g s

— at wh i ch p o i n t t h e b r o k e r ag e l icen s es o f t h e

Pl ai n t i ffs an d Bu t l er h ad l ap s ed

.

A b r o ker’ s co m

m i s si o n i s earn ed “ wh en

, du ri n g t h e ag en cy

, h e fi n d s a

p u rch as er wh o i s read y

, ab l e, an d wi l l i n g t o b u y an d wh o act u al l y offers t o b u y o n t h e

t erm s s t i p u lat ed by th e o wn er.” 9 Acco rd in g l y

, t h e Su prem e Co u rt o f Geo rg i a h as h el d

7 See No rt h si d

e R ea l t y

, 2 4 5 Ga. at 3 2 2 ; Br

ya n v. Br o wn Ch il d

s Rea lt y Co

. , 2 3 6

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

8 Th e ev i d en ce i s u n di sp u t ed t h at Ad v o cat e’ s li cen s e l ap sed o n No v em b er 1,

2 0 1 4 ; Bu t l er’ s l i cen s e l ap s ed i n “ m i d 2 0 1 5 ”; an d AAI’ s l i cen se l ap s ed o n Sep t em b er

1 , 2 01 5

.

9 OCGA § 1 0 -6 -3 2 ; s ee al s o Ca r r ol l v. Ha r r y No r ma n

, In c.

, 1 98 G a. Ap p

. 6 1 4,

6 1 5 (1 ) (4 0 2 SE2 d 3 5 7 ) (1 9 91 ) (“ In a s u it fo r co m m i s s i o n s t h e bu rd en o f s h o wi n g al l

t h e req u i rem en t s i s o n t h e b ro k er. Th e s al e n eed n o t a c t u al l y o ccu r i f t h e p art i es

en t ered i n t o a b i n d i n g an d en fo rceab l e ag reem en t.”) (ci t at i o ns o m i t t ed ).

6t h at a rea l e s t a t e b ro k er wh o d i d n o t o b t ai n a bro k erag e l i cen s e u n t il aft er t h e

p u rch as e co n t ract was s i g n ed h ad n o ri g h t to reco v er t h e co m m i s s i o n s peci fi ed i n t h e

co n tract b ecau s e h i s cau s e o f act i o n aro s e w h en t he co nt ract was s i g n ed

. 1 0 T h u s

, t h e

cau s e o f act i o n i n t hi s cas e aro s e wh en Co s t co s i g n ed a bi nd i n g c o n t ract t o b uy

p ro p ert y i n Ri d g ewal k Dev el op m en t

.

Th e Pl ai nt i ffs ’ rel ian ce o n o u r d eci si o n in B r ya n v. Br o wn Ch i l d

s Rea l t y Co

. 1 1

i s m i s p l aced . In t h at cas e, a real es t at e b ro k er en t ered i n to a co m m i s s i o n ag reem en t

wi t h a s el l er i n Au g u s t 1 99 2

, wh en t h e b ro ker’ s l i cen s e was i n act i v e. 1 2 Th e sel l er s o ld

t h e p ro p ert y i n M arch 1 9 9 6

, an d t h e b ro k er react i v at ed hi s l i cen s e i n J u n e 1 99 6

. 1 3 W e

h el d t h at t h e earl i es t d at e up o n wh i ch t h e cau s e o f act i on c o u l d b e d eem ed t o h av e

ari s en was No vem

b er 1 9 9 6

, wh en t h e def

e n d a n t rep u d i at ed th e 1 99 2 co n t ract an d

refu sed t o p ay t h e b ro k erag e co m m i s s i o n

. 1 4

1 0 No r t hs i de Rea l t

y , 2 4 5 Ga. at 3 2 1 -3 2 3

.

1 1 2 3 6 Ga. Ap p . 7 3 9.

1 2 Id

.

1 3 Id . at 73 9 -7 4 0 (1 ).

1 4 Id . at 74 1 (1 ).

7Here, al t h o u g h t h e Pl ai n t i ffs arg u e th at t h e Defen d an t s “ rep u d i at ed ” t h ei r

ex cl u s i v e l i s t i n g ag reem en t in t h e s u m m er o f 2 0 14

, t h ey h ad n o cl ai m f o r u n p a i d

co m m i s s io n s u n t i l a b i n d i ng ag reem en t fo r t h e s al e o f t h e p ro p ert y was act u al l y

ex ecu t ed m o re t h an a y ear l at er, i n Oct ob er 2 0 1 5

. 1 5 Un d er No rt h s i d e R e a l t y

, t h e

Pl ai n t i ffs ’ cau s e o f act io n aro s e wh en t h e p u rch as e ag reem en t was e x e c u t e d

. An d,

u n d er B r ya n

, t h ei r cau se o f act i o n aro s e l at er s ti ll

— wh en t h e Defen d an t s refu s ed to

p ay th ei r co m

m i s s i o n

. Br

ya n d oes n o t s u p po rt t h e Pl ai n t i ffs ’ arg u m en t t h at a b ro k er’ s

cau s e o f act i o n can ari s e b ef or e a p u rch as e ag reem en t i s s i g ned (i .e., b ef o r e a

co m m i s s io n i s earn ed ). Becau s e t h e Pl ai n t iffs an d Bu t l er were n ot l i cen s ed w h en t h e

Co s t co -Ho ld in g s ag reem en t was s i g n ed

, o r at an y p o i n t th er e a f t e r

, t h ei r cl ai m s are

b arred

. 1 6

2

. B a s ed o n o ur h o l d in g i n Di v i s i o n 1

, s u pra, we n eed no t reach t h e

Defen d an t s ’ al tern at e arg u m en t t h at t he t ri al co u rt erred i n fi nd i ng t h at a qu es t i o n o f

fact ex i s ted as t o wh et her t h e Pl ai n t i ffs were t h e “ p ro cu ri n g cau s e” o f t h e s al e.

3

. In rel at ed cl ai m s o f erro r i n t h e cro s s -a p p e a l ( C a s e No

. A 2 0 A 19 6 9 ), t h e

Pl ai n t i ffs arg u e t h at t h e t r i al co u rt erred i n fi n d i n g t h at t h e s u m m ary p ro ceed i n g o f

1 5 See Ca rr ol l , 1 9 8 Ga. Ap p . at 6 1 5 (1 ).

1 6 See OCGA § 43 -4 0 -2 4 (a) & (b ); Jo h ns o n , 2 4 1 Ga. Ap p . at 1 5

.

8OCGA § 1 4-1 1-3 1 3 (3 ) o nl y ap p l i ed wh ere i t was u n d i s p u t ed t hat t h e p art y s eek i n g

an i n s p ect i o n w as s ti l l a m em b er o f t h e LLC at i ss u e, an d t h at t h e co u rt erred i n n ot

fi nd i ng t h at Ad v o cat e was a m em b er o f RPI.

OCGA § 1 4 -1 1 -3 1 3 ( 3 ) p e rm i t s a “ m em b er” o f an LLC d em an d i n g an

i n s p ect i on o f t h e LLC’ s b o o k s an d r e c o r d s t o ap p l y t o s u p eri o r co u rt fo r an o rd er

d i rect i n g t h e LLC to s ho w cau s e wh y an i n s p ect io n sh o ul d n o t b e p erm i t t ed

. “ Th e

co u rt s h al l hear t h e p art i es s u m m ari l y

, b y affi d av i t o r o t h erwi s e, an d i f t h e [LLC] fai l s

t o es tab l i s h th at t h e ap p l i can t i s n o t en t i t l ed t o su ch i n s p ect i on

, t h e co u rt s h al l g ran t

an o rd er p erm i t t i n g s u ch i n s p ect i o n[.] ” 1 7

“ As u s ed i n [t h e Geo rg i a Li m i ted Li ab i l i t y Co m p an y Act 1 8 ]

, u n l es s t h e co n t ex t

o t h erwi s e req u i res

, t h e t erm : ‘[ m ]em b er’ m ean s a p ers o n wh o h as b een ad m i t t ed to

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

p an y as a m em

b er as p ro v i d ed i n Co d e Sect i o n 1 4 -1 1 -5 0 5 an d

wh o h as n o t ce a s e d t o b e a m em b er as p ro v i d ed i n Co d e Sect i o n 1 4 -1 1 -6 0 1 o r

1 4 -1 1-6 01 .1 .” 1 9

1 7 OCGA § 1 4 -1 1 -3 1 3 (3 ).

1 8 OCGA § 1 4 -1 1 -1 0 0 et s eq

.

1 9 OCGA § 1 4 -1 1 -1 0 1 (1 6 ).

9T h u s

, u n d er th e p l ai n lan g u ag e o f t h e s t at ut e, 2 0 on l y a cu rren t m em b er o f t h e

LLC m ay av ai l i ts el f o f t h e s um m ary p ro ced u res fo r in s p ect in g an LLC’ s b o o k s an d

reco rd s

. Here, Ad v o cat e fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r i n s p ect io n p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 1 4 -1 1 -3 1 3

(3 ). Th e Defen d an t s res p onde d, arg u in g t h at Ad v o cat e h ad as si g n ed away an y i n t eres t

i n RPI i n 2 0 1 4 (wh i c h Ad v o cat e d i s p u t ed i n i t s m ot io n ) an d was t h u s n o l o n g er a

m em b er en t i t l ed t o i n s pect an y t h i n g u n d er OCGA § 1 4 -1 1 -3 1 3 (3 ).

Th e t ri al co urt d en i ed t h e m o t i o n wi t h o u t p reju di ce, fi nd i ng t h at t h e s u m m ary

p ro ceed in g o f OCGA § 1 4 -1 1 -3 1 3 (3 ) “ on l y ap pl i es t o s i t u a t i o ns wh ere i t i s

u n d i s p u t ed t h at t h e p art y s eek i n g an i n sp ect i o n is st i ll a m em ber o f t he LLC at i s s u e.”

Th e co u rt fo u n d t h at “ i t rem ai n [ed ] d i s pu t ed as t o wh et h er o r n o t Ad v o cat e ret ai n [ed ]

a m em b ers h i p i n t eres t aft er i t an d Bu t l er p l ed g ed t h ei r ‘ i n t eres t ’ as part o f t h e 2 0 0 9

Lo an .” Th e co u rt t h u s d id “ n o t reach th e i s s ue as t o wh et h er o r n o t Ad vo cat e [was ]

i n fact a m em

b er, on l y th at it [was ] n o t en ti t led t o u s e t h e s u m m ary p ro ces s

. . . wh en

i t s m em b ers h i p i n t eres t rem ai n [ed ] i n d i sp u te.”

2 0 M a n n at o v. S

u n Tr u s t B a n ks

, 3 08 Ga. Ap p

. 69 1

, 6 9 2 (7 0 8 SE2 d 6 11 ) (2 0 1 1 )

(“ [W ] e ap p l y t h e fu n d a m e n t al ru l es o f s t at u t ory co n st ru ct io n th at req u ire u s to

co n st ru e a s t a t u t e a c c o rd i n g t o i ts t erm s

, t o g i v e wo rd s t h ei r p l ai n an d o rd i n ary

m ean i n g

, an d t o av o i d a co n s t ru ct i o n th at m ak es s o m e l an g u ag e m ere s u rp l u s ag e. At

t h e s am e t i m e, we m

u s t s eek t o effect u at e t h e i n ten t of t h e l eg i s lat u re.”) (ci tat i o n an d

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

10Bas e d o n t h e pl ai n l an g u ag e o f t h e s t at u t e d efi n i n g “ m em b er” as a cu rren t

m em b er, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d no t err in fi n d in g t h at a fact u al d i s p ut e ex i s ted reg ard i n g

m em b ers h i p an d t h at Ad v ocat e w a s n o t e nt i t l ed t o av ai l i t s el f o f t h e s u m m ary

p ro ced ures av ai l ab l e t o a “ m em b er” o f an LLC. Fo r ex am p l e, al t h o u gh t h e Pl ai n t i ffs

arg u e th at t h ere was n o m eet i n g o f t h e m i n d s reg ard i n g t h e m at eri a l t erm s o f an y

as s i g n m en t of i ts m em b ers h i p i n t eres t

, RPI’ s d es i g n at ed Ru l e 3 0 (b ) (6 ) 2 1

rep res en t at i v e tes ti fi ed t hat Bu t l er h ad i n fact ex ecu t ed th e o ri g in al as s i g n m en t

. Th u s

,

t h e tri al co u rt d i d n o t e r r i n d en y i n g wi th ou t p reju d i ce Ad v o cat e’ s m o t i o n fo r

i n s p ect i on

.

Ju d g m en t a f f i r med i n Ca s e No

. A2 0

A1 9 6 9

. Ju d

g men t r ever

s ed i n Ca s e No

.

A2 0 A 1 9 6 8

. Ma r

kl e a n d Co l vi n , JJ., co ncu r

.

2 1 See OCGA § 9-1 1-3 0 (b ) (6 ).

11