FOURTH D I VI SI ON

DI L LA RD, P. J.

, M ERCI ER and PI N SON, 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

M ar ch 2, 2022



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A1 60 1 . THE COTTO LAW GROUP, LLC v . BENEVIDEZ.

P I N S O N

, J u d g e.

An em pl o y ee ab ru p t l y res i g n ed fro m h er p o s i t i o n as an as s o ci at e at a l aw fi rm

an d b l ock ed i t s acces s t o h er fi rm em ai l acco u n t , t h e fi rm ’ s fax l i n e, an d cl i en t fi l es

k ep t i n an o n l i ne Dro p b o x acco u n t

. Th e fi rm s u ed h er, an d t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered a

d efau l t ju d g m en t i n i ts fav o r aft er t h e em p l o y ee fai l ed t o fi l e a t i m el y an swer. Bu t t h e

t ri al co u rt d ecl i n ed t o award an y d am ag es aft er a b en ch t ri al o n th at is su e, fi n di n g t h at

t h e fi rm h ad fai l ed t o c a r r y i t s b u rd en t o p ro v e an y d am ag es

. Th e fi rm ap p eal ed

,

co n ten d in g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y (1 ) a p p l yi n g t h e wro n g l eg al s t an d ard t o i t s

cl ai m s fo r act u al d am ag es an d d ecl in i n g t o award ev en n o m i n al d am ag es ; (2 ) fai l i n g

t o reco g n i ze t h at t h e d efau l t ju d g m en t “ co n cl u s iv el y es t ab li s hed ” th e em p l o y ee’ sl i ab i l it y fo r pu ni t i v e d am ag es an d at t o rn ey fees ; an d (3 ) den y i n g t h e fi rm ’ s ri g h t t o

p res en t cl o s in g arg um en t at t ri al

.

W e affi rm t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ju d g m en t ex cep t wi t h res p ect t o t h e at to rn ey fees

.

Th e t ri al co u rt ap p l i ed t h e co rrect l eg al s t an dard an d d i d n o t cl earl y err i n fi n d i n g t h at

t h e fi rm fai l ed t o e s t a b l i s h i t s act u al d am ag es wi t h reas o n ab l e cert ai n t y

. Th e co u rt

al s o d i d no t err i n fai l i n g t o award n o m i nal or p u n i ti v e d am ag es

. A n d t h e c o u r t d id

n o t co m m i t rev ers i b l e erro r b y fo rg o i n g cl o s i n g arg u m en t

. Bu t b ecau s e t h e en t ry o f

a d efau l t ju d g m en t req u i red t h e t ri al co u rt t o award t h e fi rm i t s reas o nab l e at t o rn ey

fees

, t h e ju d g m en t m

u s t b e rev ers ed t o t he ex t en t t h e co u rt fai l ed t o m ak e s u ch an

a w a r d

, an d t h e cas e m

u s t be rem an d ed fo r a d et erm i nat i on o f t h e pro p er am o u n t o f

t h e fee award

.

Back gro u n d

Th e rel ev an t fact s

, wh i ch are ei t her un d i s p u ted o r d eem ed ad m i t t ed b y v i rt u e

o f t h e d efau lt j u d gm en t

, s ee OCGA § 9

- 1 1 -5 5 (a), 1 are as fo l l o w s

. Th e Co t t o Law

Gro up i s a Du lu t h l aw fi rm s peci al i z i n g i n i m m i g rat i o n an d p ers o nal i n ju ry l aw. In

2 0 1 7

, V an es s a Ben ev id ez w as h i re d a s an as s o ci at e at t o rn ey t o han d l e t he fi rm ’ s

1 Un d er t h i s Co d e s ect i on

, an en t ry of d efau l t ju d g m en t g en eral ly h as t h e effect

o f d eem i n g “ ev ery i t em an d p arag rap h o f t h e co m p l ai n t ” to b e “ s up p o rt ed b y p ro p er

ev i d en ce.” See Di v i s i o n 2 b el o w.

2p ers o n al i n

j u ry m at t ers

. W h il e at Co t t o

, Ben ev id ez es t ab l i s h ed an acco u n t fo r t h e fi rm

wi t h Dro p b o x, an on l i n e fi l e-s h ari n g n et wo rk

, to m ai n t ai n cl i en t fi l es

. Sh e al s o

arran g ed fo r t h e i ns t al lat i o n o f a fax l i n e fo r co m m u ni cat i n g w i t h i n s u rers i n t h es e

p ers o n al i n

ju ry m at t ers

.

In J an u ary 2 0 19

, Ben ev i d ez an d M ay ra L azan o, a p aral eg al wh o wo rk ed

cl o s el y wi t h Ben ev id e z, res i g n ed fro m th ei r em p lo y m en t wi th t h e fi rm b y em ai l i n g

t h e fi rm ’ s pri n ci pal

, Is aac Co t t o

, n o ti fy in g h i m o f t h ei r im m e d i at e res i g nat i o n

. 2 On

Ben ev i d ez’ s d ep art u re, t h e fi rm n o l o n g er h ad acces s to i t s Dro p bo x acco u n t

, i t s fax

l i ne, o r h er fi rm

em ai l acco u nt

. 3 Th ree d ay s aft er t h e res i g n at i on s

, t h e fi rm recei v ed

l et t ers fro m

t wo cl i en t s, t erm i n at i n g t h e fi rm ’ s s erv i ces

.

Th e n ex t d ay

, Co t to fi l ed s u i t

, cl ai m i n g t h at Ben ev i d ez an d Lazan o h ad

“ co n v ert ed [i t s ] cl i en t fi l es

. . . [ a n d ] s t o l e[n ]

, to rt io u s l y in t erfered wi t h [,] an d

2 Ben ev i d ez’ s em ai l d es cri b es h er res i g n at i o n as “ fo rced ,” a s a res u l t o f h er

l earn i n g t h at M r. Co tt o was s o l i ci ti n g jo b ap p l i can t s fo r h er p o s it i o n

.

3 Al t h ou g h t h e v eri fi ed co m p l ai n t av ers t h at Ben ev i dez ch an ged t h e Dro p b o x

an d em ai l p as s w o rd s an d “ al t ered t h e co n t act i n fo rm at i o n ” fo r t h e fax l i n e t o p rev en t

t h e fi rm fro m acces si n g t h es e acco u n t s

, i t i s un cl ear t o w h at ex t en t Ben ev i d ez act u al l y

al t ered p as s wo rd s o r o t h er i nfo rm at i o n

, as op p o s ed t o s i m p l y l eav i n g wi t h o ut

p ro v id i n g t h e cred en t i al s n eces s ary t o acces s t hes e acco u n t s

. Ei t h er way

, i t i s

u n d i s p u t ed t h at

, at l eas t i n i t i al ly

, wi t h o u t Ben ev i dez, t h e fi rm was u n ab l e t o a c ces s

t h es e acco u n t s

.

3o t h erwi s e ob s t ru ct ed [t h e fi rm ’ s ] acces s t o i t s cl i en t fi les ” i n v i o l at i o n o f v a ri ou s

Geo rg i a s t at u t es

. Th e co m p l ai n t s o u g h t i n

j u n ct iv e rel ief as wel l as “ co m pen s at o r y

,

co n seq u en t i al

, s p eci al

, n om i n al

, p u n i t i v e, an d ex em p l ary da m a ge s, ” a n d at t orn ey fees

u n d er OCGA § 13 -6 -1 1.

In th e m o nt hs t h at fo l lo wed

, t he t ri al co u rt g ran t ed Co tt o t em p o rary i n ju n ct i v e

rel i ef. An d al t h o u g h Ben ev i d ez ap p eared at t h e in t erl o cu t o ry i n ju n ct i o n h eari n g

, s h e

fai l ed t o fi le a t i m el y an s wer. 4 Co t t o m o v ed fo r a d efau l t ju dg m en t, an d

, al t h o u g h

Ben ev i d e z t h en fi l ed an un t i m el y an s wer an d m o v ed t o o p en th e d efau l t

, t h e t ri al

co u rt reject ed t h es e effo rt s an d g ran t ed Co t t o ’ s m o t i o n fo r d efau l t ju d g m en t

.

A b en ch t ri al o n d am ag es fo l l o wed

. 5 Co t to p res en t ed two wi t n es s es t o t es t i fy

o n d am ag es

. Fi rs t, Co tt o cal l e d E r i k a Qu i ro z, t h e fi rm ’ s m ark et i ng d i rect o r, wh o

t es t i fi ed t h at

, as a res ul t of Ben ev i d ez’ s d ep art u re an d th e fi rm ’ s l ack o f acces s t o i t s

el ect ro ni c fi l es

, sh e h ad t o “ s t ay i n t h e o ffi ce an d do offi ce w o rk ” i n s t ead o f her u s u al

b u s i n es s d ev e l o p m e n t wo rk o u t s i de t h e o ffi ce. Fo r ro u g h l y a m o n t h

, Qu i ro z was

s i del in ed fro m h er m ark et i ng d u t i es t o h el p “ reo rg an i ze

. . . t h e o p erat io n o f t h e l aw

fi rm ”; s h e tes t i fi ed t h at “ t h ere were fi l es ev ery wh ere i n t he o ff i c e a n d I h ad t o s t art

4 Lazan o h ad b y t h at p o i n t b een d i s m i s s ed fro m t h e cas e.

5 Ben ev id ez wai ved h er d em an d fo r a ju ry t ri al

.

4cal l in g t h e cl i en ts an d

. . . [l et ] t hem k n o w t h at M s. Ben ev i d ez was n ’ t t h ere an y m o re.”

Qu i ro z t es t i fi ed th at s h e wo rk ed 1 2 2 h o u rs o n t h i s “ reo rg an i zat io n ” wo rk an d t h at h er

s al ary at th e t i m e was $ 1 5 p er h o u r. Sh e t es t i fi ed fu rt h er t h at

, i n a t y p i cal m on t h

, s h e

b ro u gh t i n b et ween 2 0 an d 3 5 n ew cas es an d t h at

, d u ri n g t h e m on t h s h e was d i v ert ed

fro m h er m ark et in g d ut i es

, s h e b ro u g h t i n o n l y ten n ew cas es

. On cro s s -ex am i n at i o n,

Qu i ro z ad m i t t ed t h at

, b e c a u s e Ben ev i dez h ad b een t h e fi rm ’ s o nl y p ers o n al i n ju ry

at t o rn ey

, i t was i n e v i t a b l e t h at

, i f s h e were ev er t o l eav e t h e fi rm

, so m eo n e wo u ld

h a v e t o “ t e n d t o t h o s e fi l es th at s he was no l o n g er h an d l in g .” On red i rect

, Qu i ro z

ag reed t h at t h e “ real r e a s o n ” s h e h ad t o s t ep i n t o h el p was t h at Ben ev i d ez h ad l eft

wi t h o u t p ro v i d i n g acces s t o h er em ai l an d t h e Dro p b o x fi l es

.

Co t t o’ s o t h er wi t n es s was Is aa c Co t t o

. M r. Co t t o t es t i fi ed t h at

, b ecau s e

Ben e v i d ez h ad effect iv el y bl ock ed t h e fi rm ’ s acces s t o her em ai l

, t h e Dro p b o x

a c c o u n t, an d t h e fax l i n e, “ we h ad to g o

, b as i cal l y

, m an u al l ab o r an d p hy s i cal l y g o

t h ro u g h ev ery s i ng l e fi l e to co m m u n i cat e wi t h p ro v id ers an d cl i en t s .” He t es t i fi ed t h at

h e as k e d B e n e v i d ez fo r t h e Dro p b o x i nfo rm at i on bu t s h e n ev er gav e i t t o hi m

, an d

t h at u lt i m at el y

h i s s t aff h ad t o fi g u re o ut t he p as s wo rd “ t h ro u g h t ri al an d erro r.” He

al s o t es t i f i e d t hat fi ve o f th e fi rm ’ s p ers o n al i n ju ry cl i en t s l eft “ wi t h i n 24 h o u rs ” to

g o wi t h Ben ev i d ez. As t o t h e v al u e o f t h o s e cl i en t s ’ cas es

, M r. C o t t o t es ti fi ed t h at

,

5wh i le h e co u l d no t “ g i v e a do l l ar am o un t

, ” a ty p i cal p ers o n al i n

ju ry cas e “ can ran g e

fro m $2 ,0 0 0 t o $ 10 ,0 00 ”; h e al so o p i n ed t h at Ben ev id ez “ wo u l d n o t h av e tak en a cas e

o f l o w v al u e.” M r. Co t to al s o tes t i fi ed t h at th e fi rm had s u ffered rep u t at i o n al d am ag e

wi t h cl i en t s an d referral s o urce s

. I n a d d i t i o n

, h e tes t i fi ed t h at Qu i ro z an d h er

ad m i n is t rat i v e as s i s t an t were bo t h d i v ert ed fro m t h ei r m ark et i n g du t i es to h el p t ri ag e

t h e s i t uat i o n ; t h at Qu i ro z was p ai d $ 3 ,0 0 0 p er m o nt h an d h e r as s i s tan t was p ai d

$ 2 ,0 0 0 p er m o n th ; an d t h at

, b ecau s e o f t h ei r i n ab i l i t y t o d ev el o p b us i n es s d u ri n g t h at

t i m e, “ o u r si g n u p n u m

bers wen t d o wn d ram at i cal l y .” M r. Co tt o t es t i fi ed t h at t h e fi rm

h ad

, u p u n t i l t h e t ri al , s p en t b et ween $ 7 ,0 0 0 an d $ 8 ,0 0 0 o n at t o rn ey fees

.

On cro s s -ex am i n at i o n, M r. Co t t o ack n o wl ed g ed t h at

, b ecau s e Ben ev i d ez an d

Lazan o w ere t h e o n l y s taff h an d l i n g p ers o n al i n j u ry cas es at th e fi rm

, i f th ey b o t h l eft

t h ei r e m p l o y m en t fo r an y

reas o n

, so m eo n e at th e fi rm “ wo u l d need t o rev iew al l o f

t h e fi l es i n t h o s e cas es

, reg ard l es s .” In ad d i t i o n

, Mr. Co t t o co n fi rm ed t h at h is s t an d ard

en g ag em en t l et t er fo r p ers o nal i n ju ry cas es p ro v i d ed t h at

, i f t h e cl i en t t erm i n at ed t h e

fi rm ’ s s erv i ces b efo re t h e cas e was res o l v ed

, t h e cl i en t wo u l d b e ob l i g at ed to

rei m b u rs e t h e fi rm

at t he s t an d ard h o url y rat e fo r t h e h o u rs s p en t o n t h e cas e. Th u s

,

h e ad m i t t ed

, th e fi rm was en t it l ed t o s eek s u ch co m p en s at i o n fro m an y o f t he cl i en t s

6wh o l eft t h e fi rm t o en g ag e Ben ev i d ez. He al s o ad m i t t ed he d i d n o t k n ow t h e “ ex act ”

v al u e o f t h e cas es l os t t o Ben ev i d ez.

On fu rt h er cro s s -ex am i n at i o n

, M r. Co t t o ad m it t ed t h at Ben ev i d ez h ad act u al l y

o ffered h im t h e em ai l an d D ro p b o x acco u n t cred en t i al s wi t h i n d ay s aft er t h e s u i t was

fi led

, b u t he d ecl i n ed t o res p on d

. In hi s wo rd s

, b ecau s e h e h ad al read y ret ai n ed

co u ns el , “ I co u l dn ’ t co m

m u n i cat e wi t h h er at t h at p o i n t .”

Aft er M r. Co t t o ’ s t es t i m on y

, a reces s was t ak en befo re B e ne vide z b e ga n c a l l i n g

h er w i t nes s es

. Aft er t h e reces s

, t h e co u rt an n o u n ced i t s fi n d i n g t hat Co t t o h ad fai l ed

t o m eet i t s bu rd en o f p ro o f an d t h u s n o d am ag es were b ei n g award ed

. Co t t o’ s co u n s el

as k ed fo r cl ari fi cat i on

, an d t h e co u rt s t at ed t h at Co tt o h ad no t offered “ an y s p eci fi cs

ab o ut d am ag es .” Co t t o ’ s co u n se l no t ed t h at Co t t o had o ffered t es t i m o n y ab o u t t h e

m ark et i n g d i rect o r’ s ex p en ses

, b u t t h e co u rt rep l i ed t h at Co t t o n ev er p res en t ed “ a

n u m b er [fo r] h o w m

u ch m o n ey t h e fi rm l o s t [,] ” an d t h at ev i d en ce am o un t ed t o m ere

“ s p ecu l at i o n .” Befo re th e p art i es were ex cu s ed

, Co t t o’ s co un s el n o ted t h at Co t t o h ad

i n t en d ed t o as k fo r p u n i t i ve d am ag es

.

7Two d ay s aft er t h e h eari n g

, t he co u rt en tered i ts wri t t en ord er, i n wh i ch i t s t at ed

s u m m ari ly

, “ Th e Pl ai n t i ff fai led t o p ro v e dam ag es as req u i red b y l aw.” 6 Th i s ap p eal

fo l l o w ed

.

Di s cu ss i o n

On rev i ew o f a ju d g m en t en t ered aft er a b en ch t ri al

, t hi s Co u rt m u st u p h o l d al l

fi nd i ng s o f fact u n l es s t h ey are cl earl y erro n eo u s

, an d d u e reg ard s hal l b e g i ven t o t h e

t ri al co u rt ’ s as ses s m en t o f t h e cred i b i l i t y o f w it nes s es

. OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 2 (a); Mo s es

v. Pen n eb a ker

, 3 12 Ga. A p p. 6 2 3

, 6 2 9 (2 ) (b ) (7 1 9 SE2 d 5 2 1 ) (2 0 11 ). “ Th e cl earl y

erro neo u s tes t i s t he sam e as t h e an y ev i d en ce ru l e. Th u s

, an ap p el l at e co u rt wi l l n ot

d i s t u rb fact fi nd i n g s o f a t ri al co u rt i f t h ere i s an y ev i d en ce t o s u s t ai n t h em .” I d

.

(p u n ct u at i o n an d fo o tn o t e o m i tt ed ). On t h e o t h er h an d

, t h e co u rt ’ s ju d g m en t m u s t b e

rev ers ed “ wh ere i t i s ap p aren t th at i t res t s o n erro n eo us reas o n i n g or o n an erro n eo u s

l eg al t h eo ry .” CBS

, In c. v. An o i nt ed Ha i r S tu d i o

, In c.

, 3 2 5 Ga. Ap p

. 56 0

, 56 0 -6 1 (7 5 4

SE2 d 1 3 8) (2 0 1 4) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ).

Co t t o’ s co n t en t i on s on ap p eal b reak d o wn i n t o t h ree m ai n arg u m en t s: (1 ) t h at

ju d g ed un d er t he pro per s t an d ard

, th e ev i den ce Co tt o o ffered was en o u gh t o s u p p o rt

6 N ei t h er p art y req u es ted t h at t h e t ri al co u rt en t er s p eci fi c fi nd i n g s o f fact o r

co n cl u s i o n s of l aw, ei t h er befo re o r aft er t h e en t ry o f ju d g m en t

. See OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 2

(a), (c).

8a reas o n ab l e c a l cu l at i o n o f d am ag es ; (2 ) t h at t h e defau l t ju d g m en t “ co n cl u s i v el y

es t ab l i s h ed ” Ben ev i d ez’ s l i ab i l it y fo r p u n it i ve d am ag es a nd at t o rn ey fees ; an d (3 ) t h at

t h e tri al co u rt erred i n den y i n g Co tt o ’ s ri g h t to p res en t cl o si n g arg u m en t at t ri al

. W e

rev i ew each co n t en t i o n in t u rn

.

1

. W e t a k e fi rs t Co tt o ’ s co n t en t io n t h at it p ro v ed d am ag es u n d er th e p ro p er

s t an d ard

. It i s w e l l

- s e t t l ed th at

, t o reco v er d am ag es as a res ul t of an o t h er’ s

wro ng d o i n g

, a p art y m

u s t o ffer p ro o f s u ffi ci en t t o es tab l i s h th e am ou n t o f i t s l o s s es

.

W i t t y v. McNea l Ag en cy, In c.

, 2 3 9 Ga. Ap p

. 5 5 4

, 5 6 2 (5 ) (5 2 1 SE2 d 6 1 9 ) (1 99 9 ). Th e

cl ai m an t b ears “ t h e b u rd en o f s h o w i n g t h e am o u n t o f th e l o ss

, an d of s ho wi n g i t in

s u ch a way t h at t h e [t ri er] m ay cal cu l at e t h e am o u n t fro m th e fi g u res fu rn i s h ed .” Id

.

( c i t a t i o n an d pu n ct u at i o n om i t t ed ). “ A n award of d am ag es can n o t be b as ed o n

s p ecu l at i o n

, co n

ject u re, o r g u es s w o rk .” Mi t ch el l v. Mi t ch el l

, 2 7 4 Ga. 6 3 3

, 6 3 4 (2 )

(5 5 5 SE2 d 4 3 6 ) (2 0 0 1). So

, al t h o u g h an ex act d o l l ar fi g u re n eed n o t b e p ro v en

, W i t t y

,

2 3 9 Ga. Ap p

. at 56 2 (5 ), t h e ev i d en ce m u s t p erm i t t h e t r i er o f fact to cal cu l at e t h e

am ou n t o f th e l o s s “ wi t h a reas o n ab l e d eg ree o f cert ai n t y

. ” Leg a cy Aca d emy, In c. v.

Do l es -S m i t h En t er

s

., In c.

, 3 3 7 G a

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

(ci t at i o n an d pu n ct uat i o n o m it t ed ). Acco rd Mo ll y Pi t ch er Ca n ni n g Co

. v. Cen t r a l of

Ga

. Ry. Co

. , 1 4 9 Ga. Ap p

. 5

, 1 1 (4 ) (2 5 3 SE2 d 3 9 2 ) (1 9 7 9 ) (n ot i n g t h at “ [m ] ere

9d i ffi cu l t y ” in fi x i n g t h e am o u n t o f d am ag es i s n o t a “ l eg al ob s tacl e” t o t h ei r reco v ery

,

s o l o n g as t h e ev i d en ce p erm i t s t h ei r cal cu lat i o n wi t h “ reas o n ab l e cert ai n t y ”).

Th e req ui rem e n t t o p ro v e dam ag es t o a reas o n ab l e d eg ree o f cert ai n t y h o l d s

ev en wh en l i ab i l i t y has b een es t ab l is h ed

. In o t h er wo rd s

, ev en i f a d efen d an t i s fo u n d

l i ab l e, an award o f zero d am ag es i s au t ho ri zed i f t he p l ai n t i ff fai l s to o ffer s u ffi ci en t l y

s p eci fi c o r cred i b l e ev i d en c e t o e n ab l e t h e cal cu l at io n o f d am ag es w i t h reas o n ab l e

cert ai n ty

. See

, e

. g

. , Ha r t v. W a l ker

, 3 4 7 Ga. Ap p

. 5 8 2

, 5 8 3 -8 4 (1 ) (8 2 0 SE2 d 2 0 6 )

(2 0 1 8) (affi rm i n g t ri al co u rt ’ s award o f ze r o d a m ag es

, d es p i t e d efen d an t ’ s u n d i s p u t ed

l i ab i l i t y fo r wro n g fu l ev i ct i o n an d o th er t ort s

, wh ere p l ai n t i ff h ad offered as ev i d en ce

o f d am ag es o n l y h i s o wn t es t im o n y an d a si n g l e m o t el recei p t ); Ja r a ys i v. S eb a s t i a n

,

3 1 8 Ga. Ap p

. 4 6 9

, 4 7 7 (2 ) (7 3 3 SE2 d 7 8 5) (2 01 2 ), d is ap p ro ved o n o t h er g ro u n d s by

Geo rg e v. Her cu l es Rea l E s t at e S er v., In c.

, 3 3 9 G a. Ap p

. 8 4 3

, 8 5 0 ( 2 ) (a) (i i ) (7 9 5

SE2 d 8 1 ) (2 0 1 6 ) (affi rm i n g t ri al co urt ’ s d et erm i nat i on t ha t, th o u g h lan d l o rd m ay h av e

b een en t i t l ed t o reco v er rep ai r co s t s

, h e had fa i l e d t o p res en t ev i d en ce s h o wi n g t h e

am ou n t o f t ho s e co s t s an d w as t h u s n o t en ti t led t o an y r e c o v e r y); Cr a wf o r d v.

Da mma n n

, 2 7 7 Ga. Ap p

. 4 4 2

, 4 4 8 -4 9 (3 ) (6 2 6 SE2 d 6 3 2 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (affi rm i n g t ri al

co u rt ’ s award o f zero d am ag es

, co n cl u d i n g t h at t es t i m o ny ab o u t t h e “ ap p ro x i m at e”

10am ou n t of fees wro n g fu l l y as s es s ed wa s “ in s u ffi ci en t t o p ro v e t h e am o u n t o f

[d am ag es ] t o t he req ui si t e d eg ree o f s p eci fi ci t y ”).

(a) Co t t o co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ap p li ed “ an erro neo u s leg al s t an d ard ” in

as s es s i n g i t s d am ag es cl ai m s

, b u t n o t h i n g i n t h e co u rt ’ s o ral p ro n o u n cem en t o r i t s

s u m m ar y w r i t t en o rd er in d i cat es t h at i t ap p li ed an y s tan d ard o t h er t h an t h e

reas on ab l e-d eg ree-o f-cert ai n ty t es t . So t h i s co n t en t io n fai l s.

(b ) Ab s en t ap p l i c at i o n of t h e wro n g l eg al s tan d ard

, t h e q ues t i o n b eco m es

wh et h er t h e t ri al co u rt cl earl y erred i n fi n d i n g t h at t h e ev i den ce o f Co t t o ’ s al l eg ed

d am ag es was i n su ffi ci en t t o al l o w cal cu l at i o n o f dam ag es to a reas o n ab l e cert ai n t y

.

See OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 2 (a); Mo s es

, 3 1 2 Ga. Ap p

. at 62 9 (2 ) (b ). Pu tt i ng as i d e p u n i t i v e

d am ag es an d at t orn ey fees

, Co t t o cl ai m s t h at it w as en t i t l ed t o f o u r d i fferen t

cat eg o ri es o f d am ag es , wh i ch we wi l l t ak e o n e b y o n e.

(i ) Co tt o fi rs t cl ai m s t h at i t was en t i t l ed t o d am ag es fo r t h e fi v e cl i en t s t h at l eft

t h e fi rm t o en g ag e Ben ev i d e z

. B u t Co t t o ad m i ts it co ul d o ffer n o act u al d o l l ar

am ou n t s t o rep res en t t h e v al u e o f t h es e cl i en t s ’ m at ters

. Al t h o u gh M r. Co t t o t es t i fi ed

t h at a t y p i cal p ers o n al i n

ju ry cas e “ can ran g e fro m $ 2 ,0 0 0 t o $ 1 0 ,0 0 0,” Co tt o o ffered

n o s p eci fi c ev i d en ce ab o u t an y o f t h e fi ve “ s t o l en ” cas es

, an d t h us n o b as i s f o r

m ak i n g an y reas on ab l e es t i m at e o f t hei r p o t en t i al v al ue. M oreo v er, i t is u ncl ear wh at

11t h i s $ 2 ,0 0 0 t o $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 ran g e ev en rep res en t s

. Bu t ev en as s u m in g i t refers t o t h e

fi rm ’ s co n t i n g en cy fee o n s u cces s fu l res o l ut i o n o f t h e cas e, an d as s u m i n g each cas e

wo u l d h av e b een s u cces s fu l l y res o l v ed

, t h i s fi gu re d oes n o t n eces s ari ly rep res en t t h e

f i r m ’s p r o f i t fro m t h at cas e, as i t d o es n o t t ak e i n t o acco u n t an y ex p en s es t h e f i r m

w o u l d h av e i n cu rred i n g en erat i n g t h at fee. See Leg a cy Aca d emy, In c. v. JLK, In c.

,

3 3 0 Ga. Ap p

. 3 9 7

, 4 04 -0 5 (2 ) (7 6 5 SE2 d 4 7 2 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (“ To s u ffi ci en t l y q u an t i fy l o s t

p ro fi ts

, a fi n d er o f fact ‘ m u s t b e p ro v i d ed w i t h fi g u res es t ab l i s h i n g t h e b u s i n es s ’ s

p ro ject ed rev en u e a s wel l a s i t s p r o j ect ed exp en s es .’ ” (em

p h as is s u p pl i ed )). 7 In s u m

,

t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fi nd in g t h at Co t t o fai l ed t o o ffer su ffi ci en t ev i d en ce to p ro v e t h i s i t em

o f d am ag es was n ot cl earl y e r ro neo u s

. See H a r t

, 3 47 Ga. A p p

. at 5 83 -8 4 (1 );

Cr a wf o r d , 2 7 7 Ga. Ap p . at 4 4 8 -4 9 (3 ).

(i i) Nex t, Co t t o co n t en d s t h at i t w as en t i t l ed t o reco v er d am ag es to co v er t h e

ex p en s es i t in cu rred i n “ r e s t o ri n g i t s cl i en t fi les an d co m m u n i cat i o n s.” Co t t o ci t es

ev i d en ce t h at Q u i ro z an d h er as s i st an t were pai d $ 3 ,0 0 0 an d $ 2

, 0 0 0 p er m o n t h,

7 It i s al s o h ard t o i g n o re t h e fact t h at C o t t o fai l ed t o m i t i g at e t hi s i t em o f

d am ag es b y ex erci s i n g i t s co n t ract u al ri g h t t o s eek h ou rl y fees fro m t he cl i en t s fo r i t s

t i m e s p en t o n t h ei r m at t ers

. A l t h o u g h t h e d u t y t o m i t i g at e o n e’ s t ort d am ag es

o s t en s i b l y ap p l i es o n l y t o neg l i g en ce cl ai m s

, s ee O CGA § 5 1 -1 2 -1 1

, an d t hu s t h i s fact

al o n e l i k el y wo u l d n o t bar Co t t o’ s reco v ery

, i t s fai l u re t o pu rs u e t h i s o b v i ou s rem ed y

i s n o t ab l e.

12res p ect i vel y , an d Qu i ro z’ s t es t i m o n y th at s h e s p en t a m o nt h d o i n g “ o ffi ce wo rk ” t o

h e lp “ reo rg an i ze

. . . t h e o p erat i o n o f t h e l aw fi rm .” Co t to cl ai m s i t was en t i t l e d t o

reco v er $ 5 ,0 0 0

.

It i s t ru e t hat “ n eces s ary ex pen s es co n s eq uen t u p o n an i n ju ry are a l eg i t i m at e

i t em i n t h e es t i m at e o f d am ag es .” OCGA § 5 1 -1 2-7

. Bu t t h e fi rm wo u l d h av e p ai d t h e

s al ari es o f Qu i ro z an d h er as si s t an t wh et h er t hey w ere hel p i n g “ reo rg an i ze” aft er

Ben ev i d ez’ s d ep art ure o r perfo rm i n g th ei r n orm al j o b d u t i es

. So t he s al ari es d i d n ot

rep res en t an y ad d it i o n al co s t to t h e fi rm

. 8 Cf. Ta ft v. Ta f t

, 2 0 9 Ga. Ap p

. 4 9 9

, 5 0 0 (3 )

(4 3 3 SE2 d 6 6 7 ) (1 99 3) (co s t o f h i ri n g ad d i t i o n al wo rk ers n eces s it at ed b y p l ai n t i ff’ s

p ers o n al i n

ju ri es was p ro p erl y award ed as n eces s ary ex p en ses u n d er OCGA § 5 1 -1 2

-

7 ). Th e t ri al co urt t h u s d i d n o t c l e arl y err b y co ncl u d in g th at Qu i ro z’ s an d h er

as s i s t an t ’ s s al ari es d i d n o t co n s t i tu t e d am ag es o f th i s ki n d

. See Ha r t

, 3 4 7 Ga. Ap p.

at 5 8 3 -8 4 (1 ); Cr a wf

o r d , 2 7 7 Ga. Ap p . at 4 4 8 -4 9 (3 ).

8 In ad d i ti o n

, as Qu i ro z ad m it t ed

, at l eas t so m e o f t h e wo rk s h e p erfo rm ed was

t h e i n ev i t ab l e tran si t io n-t y p e wo rk t h at wo u l d hav e b een req u ired ev en i f Ben ev i dez

an d Lazan o h ad l eft t h e fi rm un d er no rm al ci rcu m s t an ces

. A n d w h i l e Co t t o b em o an s

t h e ex t rao rd i n ary effo rt s i t t o ok t o “ recreat e” t h e Dro p b o x fi l es i t co u l d n o t acces s

,

w e can no t o v erl o o k th e u n di s p u t ed fact t hat Co t t o refu s ed al t o g et h er t o res p o n d t o

Ben ev i d ez’ s o ffer, m ere d ay s aft er s h e l e f t

, t o g i v e h i m t h e D ro p b ox an d o t h er

p as s wo rd s —an o t h er co n s p icu o u s fai l u re t o m i ti g at e t he fi rm ’ s d am ag es

.

13(i ii ) Co t t o al s o co n t en d s th at i t s h ou l d h av e b een award ed it s l o s s es at t ri b u t ab l e

t o t h e d ecl i n e i n n ew cas es b ro u g h t i n d u ri n g th e m on t h i n wh i ch Qu i ro z was d i v ert ed

fro m h er m ark et i n g d ut i es

. Co t t o as s ert s t h at it “ l o s t $ 2 0 ,0 0 0

, an d l i k el y m uch m o re,

b ecau s e o f i t s l ack o f m ark et i n g fo r an en ti r e m o nt h .” Th i s n um b er co m es fro m

Qu i ro z’ s t es t im o n y

t h at t h e fi rm

effect i v el y “ l o s t” at l eas t t en n ew cas es

— g i v en i t s

t y p i cal twen t y t o t h i rt y -fi v e m o n t h l y cas e o ri g i n at io n s

, v ers u s t he t en cas es i t act u al l y

o ri g i nat ed d u ri n g t h e m o n t h i n q u e s t io n

— co m b i n ed wi t h M r. Co t t o ’ s t es t i m o ny

v al u i n g each p ers o nal i n

ju ry cas e i n t h e ran g e o f $ 2,0 0 0 t o $ 10 ,0 0 0

.

Bu t we h av e al read y h el d t h at M r. Co t t o ’ s t es t im o n y ab o u t t h e v al u e o f a ct u al

cas es t h e fi rm lo st t o Ben ev i d ez was s p ecu lat i v e, an d th at t h e t r i al co u rt d i d n ot

cl earl y err i n co n cl ud i n g t h at i t d i d n o t al l o w fo r cal cu l at io n o f t ho s e d am ag es wi th

reas on ab l e cert ai n t y

. Th e v al ue o f an y p o t en t i a l cas es t h e fi rm m ay h av e l o s t wo u ld

b e at l eas t as sp ecu l at i ve. Fo r t h i s reas o n

, t h ere was n o cl ear erro r i n t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

fai l u r e t o award t h i s it em o f d am ag es

. See H a r t

, 3 47 Ga. A p p

. at 5 83 -8 4 (1 );

Cr a wf o r d , 2 7 7 Ga. Ap p . at 4 4 8 -4 9 (3 ).

(i v) Co t t o al s o co nt en d s t h at t h e t ri al co urt erred b y fai li n g t o award n o m i n al

d am ag es . Ag ai n , we d i s ag ree.

14No m i nal d am ag es are a fo rm o f “ g en eral d am ag es ,” a t e r m w h i ch refers to

“ t h os e wh i ch t he l aw p r es u mes t o fl o w fro m a t o rt i o u s act .” MTW In v. Co

. v. Al co vy

Pr o ps

., In c.

, 2 2 8 Ga. Ap p

. 2 0 6

, 2 1 1 (1 ) (c) (4 91 SE2 d 4 6 0 ) (1 9 9 7) (em p h as i s in

o ri g i nal ). See OCGA § 5 1 -1 2 -4 (p ro v i d i n g th at “ [d ] am age s a r e give n a s c o m pe ns at i o n

fo r i n ju ry ;

. . . .[i ] f an i n

ju ry i s sm a l l o r t h e m it i gat i n g ci rcu m s t an ces are s t ro n g,

n o m i n al d am ag es o n l y are g i v en ”). Becau se “ [t ] h e l aw i n fers s o m e d am ag e fro m t h e

i n v as i o n o f a p ro p ert y ri g h t

, ” t h e ri g h t m ay b e v i n d i cat e d t h r o u g h an award o f

n o m i n al d a m a g e s ev en i f t h e d am ag e can no t b e q u an ti fi ed o r es t ab li s hed b y p ro o f.

Ga

. Po wer Co

. v. W

o mb l e

, 1 5 0 Ga. Ap p

. 2 8

, 3 2 (3 ) (2 5 6 SE2 d 6 4 0 ) (1 9 79 ). See al s o

W i l l ia ms v. Ha r r i s , 2 0 7 Ga. 5 7 6 , 5 7 8 (2 ) (6 3 SE2 d 3 8 6 ) (1 9 5 1 ) (“ n o m i n al d am ag es

are al way s al l o wed fo r an y t ort i o u s i n v as i o n o f a p ro p ert y ri g h t

, t h ou g h n o act u al

d am ag e res u l t s t h erefro m ”).

Bu t ju s t b ecau se n o m i n al d am ag es m ay b e award ed d o es n o t m ean t h ey m u s t

b e award ed

. Al t ho u g h a t ri al co u rt m ay n ot u n d er t h es e ci rcu m s t an ces reject a cl ai m

fo r n o m i n al dam ag es as a m at t er o f l aw, s ee, e.g

. , Zh o n g v. PNC Ba n k, N.A.

, 3 4 5 Ga.

Ap p

. 1 3 5

, 1 4 2 -4 3 (2 ) (c) (8 1 2 SE2 d 5 1 4 ) (2 0 1 8) (rev ers al was warran t ed wh ere i t was

d eci d ed as a m at t er o f l aw t h at n o m i n al d am ag es w ere u nav ai l ab le wi t h o u t p ro o f o f

act u al d am ag es ); Amb or t v. Ta r i ca

, 1 5 1 Ga. Ap p

. 9 7

, 9 7 (1 ) (2 58 SE2 d 75 5 ) (1 9 7 9 )

15(rev ers in g d i rect ed v erd i c t o n co u n tercl ai m b ecau s e n om i n al d am ag es were

p o t en t i al ly re c o v e r ab l e), we h av e o n at l eas t t wo o ccas io n s h el d t h at a t ri er o f fact

m ay p ro perl y d ecl i n e t o award ev en n o m i nal d am ag es d es p i t e t he de f en dan t ’ s l i ab i l i t y

h av in g b een d efi n i t i v el y es tab l i s h ed

. See Ho ds o n v. W h it wo r t h

, 1 7 3 Ga. Ap p

. 8 6 3,

8 6 4 (1 ) (3 2 8 S E 2 d 75 3 ) (1 9 8 5 ) (d ecl in i n g t o rev ers e ju ry ’ s zero d am ag es award

wh ere l i ab i l it y was al read y es t ab l i s h ed

, n o t in g th at n o m i nal d a m ag es were

“ au t h o ri zed b u t no t d em an d ed ”); Co r r o s i o n Co n t r o l

, In c. v

. W illia m Ar ms t r on g S

mi th

Co

. , 15 7 Ga. Ap p. 2 9 1

, 2 9 2 (2 7 7 SE2 d 2 8 7 ) (1 9 8 1 ) (d ecl i n i ng t o rev ers e zero

d am ag es award aft er ben ch t ri al ev en t h o u g h no m i n al d a m a g e s wo ul d h av e b een

au t h o ri zed ). Cf. Ho o ker v. Ro ber s o n

, 3 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. 3 4 5

, 3 46 (2 ) (7 2 9 SE2 d 4 8 4 )

(2 0 1 2) (rev ers i n g wh ere tri al co u rt s i t t i n g as t ri er of fact h ad fai l ed to co n s i d er

n o m i n al d am ag es b ecau se o f i t s erro r i n reco n s i d eri n g d efen d an t’ s l i ab i l i t y aft er t h e

en t ry o f a d efau l t ju d g m en t ). Th u s

, Co t t o ’ s co n t en ti o n t h at th e t ri al co u rt was req u i red

t o award n o m i nal d am ag es h ere i s u n fo u n d ed

.

W h ere n o m i n al d am ag es are au t h o ri zed

, t h e pro p er am o u n t o f th e award i s t h e

p rero g at i v e of t he t ri er o f fact

, wh o s e d et erm i nat i on i s “ n o t [ t o ] b e d i s t u rb ed o n

ap p eal

, ex cep t i n ex t rem e cas es .” Po n ce d e Leo n Co nd

o s

. v. D i Gi r o l a m o

, 2 3 8 Ga.

1 8 8

, 1 9 0 (3 ) (2 3 2 SE2 d 6 2 ) (1 9 7 7 ). Part icu l arl y g i ven Co t t o ’ s un d is p u t ed fai l u re to

16m i t i gat e it s act u al d am ag es

, we d o n o t vi ew th is cas e as s o “ ex t rem e” as t o warran t

d i s t u rb i n g t h e n o n -award o f n o m i n al d am ag es

.

2

. Co t t o n ex t co nt en d s th at Ben ev i d ez’ s d efau lt “ co n cl u s iv el y es t ab l i s h ed ” i t s

en t i t l em en t t o pu n i t i ve d am ag es an d at t orn ey fees

. W e ad d res s each k i nd o f d am ag es

i n t urn

.

(a) A d efen d an t i n d efau l t “ ‘i s i n t h e p o s it i on o f h av i n g ad m i t t ed each an d

ev ery m at eri al al l eg at i o n o f t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s p et i t io n ex cep t as t o t h e am o u n t o f d am ag es

al l eg ed .’ ” Co h r a n v. Ca r l in , 2 5 4 Ga. 5 8 0 , 5 8 5 (3 ) (3 3 1 SE2 d 5 2 3 ) (1 9 8 5 ). See al s o

OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 5 (a) (u p on t h e en t ry o f a d efau l t ju d g m en t

, “ ev ery i t em an d

p arag rap h o f t h e co m

pl ai n t o r o t h er o ri g i n al p l ead i n g ” i s d eem ed t o b e “ s u p p o rt ed by

p ro p er ev i d en ce,” ex ce p t t h o s e rel at ed to t h e am o u nt o f u n l i q ui d at ed d am ag es ).

Ho wev er, a defau l t j u d g m en t d o es n o t o perat e as an ad m i s si o n o f “ al l eg at i o n s n ot

wel l p l ed

, fo rced in feren ces

, or co ncl u s io n s o f l aw.” Zh o ng

, 3 4 5 G a. Ap p

. at 1 3 9 (2 )

(b ) (c i t a t io n an d p u n ct u at io n o m i t t ed ). In fact

, t h e en t ry o f a defau l t ju d g m en t d o es

n o t p rev en t a d efen dan t fro m s h o w i n g th at t h e fact s as d eem ed ad m i t t ed d o n o t g i v e

ri se t o an y

ri g h t o f reco v ery

. W

i l l i s v. Al l s t a t e In s

. Co

. , 3 2 1 Ga. Ap p

. 4 9 6, 49 8 (7 4 0

17SE2 d 4 13 ) (2 0 1 3 ); S er vi ceMa s t er Co

. v. Ma rt i n

, 2 5 2 Ga. Ap p. 7 5 1

, 7 5 2 -5 3 (1 ) (5 5 6

SE2 d 5 1 7) (2 0 0 1).

In l i g h t o f t h es e p ri n ci p l es

, i t i s “ w it hi n t he t ri al co u rt ’ s au t ho ri t y t o award n o

p u n i t i v e d am ag es d es pi te t h e fact t h at [a] d efau l t ju d g m e n t es t ab li s h ed l i ab i l i t y fo r

t h em .” Wi l

s o n W el d i n g S er v. v. Pa r t ee

, 2 3 4 G a. Ap p. 6 1 9, 6 2 0 (5 0 7 SE2 d 1 6 8 )

(1 9 9 8), o v erru l ed o n o t h e r g ro u n d s by S hi el ds v. Gi s h

, 2 80 Ga. 5 56

, 5 5 7 (1 ) (6 2 9

S E2 d 2 4 4 ) (2 0 06 ). So ev en wh en a d efen dan t defau l t s o n a co m p l ai n t s eek i n g

p u n i t i v e d am ag es

, t he t ri al co u rt i s au t h o ri zed t o fi n d t h at no pu n it i ve d am ag es s h o u ld

b e award ed b as ed on t h e p art i cu l ar fact s pres en t ed

. Th i s is b ecau s e “ t h e d et erm i n at i o n

o f l i ab i l it y fo r pu n i t i v e d am ag es an d th e a mo u nt o f p u n it i v e d am ag es are t wo s ep arat e

i s su es .” Id

. (em

p h as is su p p li ed ). Th u s

, as wi t h t h e ot h er k i nd s o f d am ag es

, we m u s t

co n si d er t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n o n p u n it iv e d am ag es b y referen ce t o t h e fact s

es t ab l i s h ed b y t h e d efau l t an d t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed at t h e h eari n g

.

Pu n i t i v e d am ag es are au t h o ri zed i n t o rt act i o n s “ i n wh i ch i t is pro v en b y cl ear

an d co n v i n ci n g ev i d en ce t hat t h e d efen d an t’ s act i o n s s ho wed w i l lfu l m i sco n d u ct

,

m al i ce, frau d

, wan t o n n es s

, o p p res s i o n

, o r t h at en t i re w an t of care wh i ch wo u l d rai s e

t h e p res u m

p t i o n o f co n s ci o u s i nd i fferen ce t o co n s eq u en ces .” OCGA § 5 1 -1 2 -5 .1 (b ).

W h en p un it i v e d am ag es are t o b e award ed , t he t ri er o f fact i s t o as s es s “ ev id en ce

. .

18. reg ard i n g wh at am o u n t o f d am ag e s w i l l b e s u ffi ci en t t o d et er, p en al i ze, or p u n i s h

t h e d efen d an t i n l i g h t o f t h e ci rcu m s t an ces o f t h e cas e.” OCGA § 51 -1 2 -5 .1 (d ) (2 ).

Th e p ro per am o u n t o f p u n i t i v e d am ag es i s “ bas ed o n t h e en li g h t en ed co n sci en ce o f

t h e [t ri er o f fact ] ,” an d o n ap p eal

, an award wi l l n o t be di s t u rb ed “ u n l es s i t i s s o

ex ces s i v e or i n ad eq u at e as t o s h o ck t h e ju d i ci al co n s ci en ce t o t h e deg ree t h at a

ju d g m en t en t ered th ereo n co n s t i t u t es an erro r of l aw.” W i l s on W el d in g S er v.

, 2 3 4 Ga.

Ap p

. at 6 2 0 (c i t a t i o n a n d p un ct u at i o n o m it t ed ). Acco rd Aver y v. S ch n ei der a s Next

Fr i en d

, 3 5 6 Ga. Ap p . 3 0 4

, 3 21 (5 ) (8 4 9 SE2 d 1 ) (2 0 2 0 ) (p h y s ical p reced en t o n l y ).

Un d er t h i s hi gh l y deferen t i al st an d ard o f rev iew, we d i s cern n o erro r i n t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n t h at p u ni ti v e d am ag es w ere n o t w arran t ed h ere. T h e al l eg at i on s

i n Co t to ’ s v eri fi ed co m

p l ai n t, wh i ch are d eem ed ad m i t ted b y t h e d efau l t

, s h o w t h at

wh en s h e l eft t h e fi rm

, Ben ev i d ez ch an g ed t h e p as swo rd s fo r t h e Dro p b o x acco u nt

a n d h er em ai l acco u n t ; refu s ed t o res p o n d t o an em ai l req u es t i n g t h es e cred en t i al s ;

ch an ged t h e co n t act i n fo rm at i o n fo r Co t to ’ s fax li ne, w h i ch cu t o ff i ts acces s to

cl i en ts an d t hei r i ns u rers ; fo rm ed a new fi rm th at was s o l i ci ti n g Co t t o ’ s cl i en t s ; an d

“ effect u at ed t h e t erm i n at i o n o f t wo o f [Co t t o’ s ] cl i en t rel at i o n s h i p s .” Al t h o ug h t h ere

i s n o d o u b t t h at t h es e act s w ere w ro n g fu l

, we n o te t h at th ere are n o s peci fi c av erm en t s

i n t he co m p l ai n t t h at Ben ev i dez’ s co n d u ct was wi l l fu l

, m al i ci o us, frau d u len t

, wan t o n,

19o p p res s i v e, o r co n s ci ou s l y i n di fferen t t o t he co n s eq u en ces

, as wo ul d b e req u i red t o

ju s t ify an award u n der OCGA § 5 1 -1 2 -5 .1 (b ). Cf. COMCAS T Co r p. v. W a rr en

, 2 8 6

Ga. A p p. 8 35

, 8 4 2 (2 ) (6 5 0 SE2 d 3 0 7 ) (2 0 0 7 ) (al l eg at io n s i n co m p lai n t t h at

d efen d an t ’ s co n d u ct was co m m i t t e d “ reck l es s ly

, wan t on l y

, an d wi th co n s ci ou s

d i s reg ard fo r t he co n s eq u en ces ” were s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p ort p u ni t iv e d am ag es award

aft er en t ry o f d efau l t ju dg m en t ). M o reo v er, M r. Co tt o ’ s o w n t es t i m on y at t h e h eari n g

rev eal ed t h at Ben ev i d ez offered t h e Dro p b o x an d em ai l p as s wo rd s t o hi m wi t h i n day s

o f h e r r e s i g n at i on

, a m i t i g at i n g fact t h at t h e t ri al co u rt m i g h t wel l h av e v i ewed as

s i gn i fi can t l y u n dercu t t i n g t he b as i s fo r an award o f p u n i t i v e dam ag e s

. In ad d i t i o n,

Co t to fai l ed t o offer an y e v i d e n c e

, a s OCGA § 5 1 -1 2 -5 .1 (d ) (2 ) req u i red

, o n wh at

am ou n t w o u l d b e “ s u ffi ci en t to d et er, p en al ize, or p u n i s h” Ben ev id ez fo r h er act i o n s

.

Un d er t h es e ci rcu m s t an c e s

, we can n o t s ay t h at t h e zero -d o l l ar p u ni t i v e d am ag es

award was s o “ in ad eq u at e as t o sh o ck t h e ju d i ci al co n s ci en ce.” W i l s o n W el di n g S er v.

,

2 3 4 Ga. Ap p . at 6 20 (p u n ct u at i o n an d fo o t n o t e o m i t t ed ).

(b ) O u r an al y si s o f t h e at t o rn ey fee award

, h o wev er, y i el d s a d i fferen t

co n cl u s i o n

. OCGA § 1 3

- 6

- 1 1 al l o ws t h e reco v ery o f at t o rn ey fees “ wh ere 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 t u b b orn l y l i ti g i o u s, or has cau s ed t h e

p l ai n t i ff un n eces s ary t ro u b l e an d ex p en s e.” As we h a v e n o t ed

, “ i f a p l ai n t i ff i n i t s

20o ri g i nal co m p l a i n t p u t s t h e d efen d an t o n n o t i ce t h at i t i s s eek i n g at t o rn ey fees an d

ex p en s es u n d er OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1 as p art o f t h e rel i ef p ray ed fo r in t h e cas e, an d i f a

d efau l t ju d gm en t i s s u b s eq u en t l y en t ered ag ai ns t th e defen d an t fo r fai l i ng t o an s wer

t h e co m p l ai n t

, th en t h e p l ai nt i ff i s en t i t led t o an award of at t o rn ey fees an d ex p en s es

as a m at t er o f l aw[.] ” W

a t er ’s Ed g e Pl a n ta t i o n H

o meo wn er ’s As s ’n

, In c. v. Rel i f o r d

,

3 1 5 Ga. Ap p

. 6 1 8

, 6 20 (7 27 SE2 d 23 4 ) (2 0 1 2). Th u s, i t i s rev ers ib le erro r t o d ecl i n e

t o award at t o rn ey fees w h ere a d efau lt j u d gm en t h as b een en tered o n a co m p l ai n t t h at

s p eci fi cal l y s eek s at t o rn ey fees u n d er OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1. Fr es h Fl o o rs

, In c. v. Fo r r es t

Ca mb r id g e Ap t s

. , LLC

, 2 5 7 Ga. Ap p

. 27 0

, 27 1 (5 7 0 SE2 d 5 9 0) (2 0 0 2 ) (rev ers i n g an d

rem an di n g wh ere n o at t o rn ey fees were award ed aft er d efau l t ju d g m en t was en t ered

o n a co m p l ai n t t h at i n cl ud ed a p ray er fo r at t o rn ey fees ).

Here, Co t t o ’s co m

p l ai nt d i d i n cl ud e a s p eci fi c cl ai m fo r OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1

at t o rn ey fees

. Th u s

, t h e t r i a l c o u rt was n o t au t h o ri zed t o d en y t h e reco v ery o f fees

al t o g et h er, an d i t s ju d g m en t m u s t b e rev ers ed o n t h i s is s u e an d t h e cas e rem an d ed fo r

a d et erm i n at i on o f t he pro p er am o u n t t o b e award ed

. See Fr es h Fl o or s

, 2 5 7 Ga. Ap p.

at 2 71

. W e n o t e th at Co t t o wi l l b e a r t h e b u rd en on rem an d t o p ro v e n ot o n l y t h e

am ou n t of at to rn ey fees ex p en d ed i n p u rs u i n g th i s m at t er b ut al s o t h e reas o nab l en es s

o f t h os e fees

. See Gr a

y v. K in g

, 2 7 0 Ga. Ap p. 8 5 5

, 8 57 -5 8 (2 ) (b ) (6 0 8 SE2 d 3 2 0 )

21(2 0 0 4) (n o t i ng t hat a p l ai n t i ff s eek i n g at to rn ey fees m u s t p ro v e “ ‘ t h e act u al co s t s o f

t h e at t orn ey

an d t h e reas o n ab l en es s o f t ho s e co s ts ’ ”).

3

. Co t t o las t ly co n ten d s t h at t he t ri al co u rt co m m i t t ed rev ers i b le erro r by

“ d en y i n g ” i t s req u es t fo r cl o s i n g arg u m en t

. As s u m i ng fo r t h e s ak e o f arg u m en t t h at

Co t to ’ s ri g h t t o m ak e a cl os i n g arg u m en t was d en i ed

, “ [a] n ew t ri a l b as ed o n t h e

d en ial o f t h e ri g h t t o

. . . cl o s e arg u m en t i s n o t warran t ed i f t h ere i s an ab s en ce o f an y

co n fl i ct i n t h e ev i den ce.” Gi l mer Ct y. Bd

. o f Ta x As s es so r

s v. S p en ce

, 3 0 9 Ga. Ap p.

4 8 2

, 4 8 3 (1 ) (b ) (7 1 1 SE2 d 5 1 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (ci t at i o ns an d pu n ct uat i o n o m i t ted ). Th ere was

cl earl y n o co n fl i ct i n th e ev i d en ce h ere b e c a u se th e o n l y ev i d en ce p res en t ed was

Co t to ’ s

. Th u s

, th e t ri al co u rt ’ s al l eg ed d en ial o f Co t to ’ s ri g ht to p res en t cl o s i n g

arg u m en t was n o t rev ers i bl e erro r.

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

, an d ca se r ema n d

ed wi th

d i r ect i o n. Di ll a r d

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

, J., co n cu r

.

22