Source: https://www.tannerpittmanlaw.com/blog-fiduciary-folio/in-re-estate-of-tarpley-executor-fraud-part-2
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:29:53+00:00

Document:
The most common issue brought up in probate litigation is that of executor fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Though difficult to prove, it is nevertheless alarmingly common. Executors of an estate sometimes deal with estate property as though it belonged to them, can "compensate" themselves handsomely for executor's services, and with surprising frequency favor one heir over others.
In re Estate of Tarpley was previously up before our Court of Appeals and was blogged about by this firm here.
The case involved an executor that treated the decedent's truck as though it were her own and wound up liable for high compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
The recent opinion, reprinted in whole after the "read more" break below, deals primarily with procedural issues surrounding the award of damages, but the underlying message is clear: executors can be taken to task for their misappropriation of estate property.
*92 Roger L. Curry, for appellant.
Tisinger Vance, Charles D. Mecklin, Jr., for appellee.
This is the second appeal from a bench trial on an estate’s claim that its executor stole a truck from it. Defendant Shirley Meeks, the erstwhile executor, argues that the trial court erred when it granted the estate of Opal Mae Tapley partial summary judgment, when it denied Meeks’s request for a jury trial, and when it awarded the estate damages and attorney fees in the amount of $96,433.73. We hold that the trial court erred when it altered the award of compensatory damages after Meeks’s unsuccessful first appeal and when it awarded the estate fees expended in a previous will contest. We therefore affirm the judgment in part, reverse it in part, and remand for further proceedings as to fees.
“To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9–11–56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.” (Citations omitted.) Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474 (1991). As to the bench trial on damages, however, we will not set aside the trial court’s findings unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. OCGA § 9–11–52(a). The clearly erroneous test is the same as the any evidence rule. Thus, an appellate court will not disturb fact findings of a trial court if there is any evidence to sustain them.
In the meantime, but after the filing of Meeks’s notice of appeal, the trial court granted her motion for reconsideration as to damages and scheduled a bench trial for September 30. On that morning, Meeks demanded a jury trial, which was refused. After hearing evidence as to damages, the trial court awarded the estate double the value of $12,000, or a total of $24,000, for the conversion of the truck; an additional $12,000 in compensatory damages “for the conversion, fraud, and other wrongs perpetrated” on the estate; $48,433.73 in attorney fees; and $12,000 in punitive damages. Meeks’s motion for new trial was denied.
1 2 1. In two assertions of error, Meeks contests the trial court’s holding that *94 she was liable for $25,000 in damages, later adjusted to $24,000, arising from the conversion of the truck.
3 As the Supreme Court of Georgia has recently reaffirmed, “a party is not entitled to a second appeal from a single order.” Houston County v. Harrell, 287 Ga. 162, 163, 695 S.E.2d 29 (2010). Here, Meeks’s first direct appeal from the trial court’s partial grant of summary judgment “was dismissed, ... with the usual consequence that the rulings of the lower court, by operation of law, stood as if affirmed.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 164, 695 S.E.2d 29. “[U]pon return of the remittitur to the trial court after the first direct appeal, the only action which that court had authority or power to take was to make the judgment of the Court of Appeals the judgment of the trial court.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id.
When the trial court ordered a bench trial as to damages and, on the basis of them, purported to award another amount of damages arising from Meeks’s conversion of the truck, it did so without jurisdiction over the subject matter. In re Estate of Zeigler, 259 Ga.App. 807, 808(1), 578 S.E.2d 519 (2003) (trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate an order because the filing of a notice of appeal served as supersedeas as to the subject matter of that judgment). The portion of its second order reducing the amount of compensatory damages concerning the conversion of the truck was therefore void at the time it was entered. Id. It follows that Meeks cannot now assert any error concerning the grant of summary judgment as to liability and the value of the truck in the amount of $25,000. Houston County, 287 Ga. at 163, 695 S.E.2d 29 (affirming a grant of partial summary judgment when the nonmovant’s first direct appeal concerning it was dismissed as untimely).
4 5 A plaintiff seeking damages for the conversion of personal property “may recover a sum in the amount of the highest value which he is able to prove existed between the time of the conversion and the trial.” OCGA § 44–12–152. “In an action for fraud, the measure of damages is the actual loss sustained, and the question of damages cannot be left to speculation, conjecture and guesswork.” (Punctuation omitted.) First Southern Bank v. C & F Svcs., 290 Ga.App. 305, 307–308(2), 659 S.E.2d 707 (2008).
Although the trial court’s first order noted that Meeks was liable for conversion of the furniture, the record shows that at the bench trial, the value of the converted furniture was given as “no more than $200.00,” with no value at all assigned to a never-recovered lawn mower. There being no basis in the record for the trial court’s award of $12,000 in compensatory damages in addition to those awarded in its first order, we reverse that portion of the judgment. First Southern Bank, 290 Ga.App. at 308(2), 659 S.E.2d 707 (reversing award of damages for fraud where plaintiff “alleged and proved only economic harm in an amount substantially less than [the factfinder’s] award”); Kimball v. Perrier, 229 Ga.App. 30, 33–34(1), 492 S.E.2d 913 (1997) (without evidence showing the extent of plaintiff’s actual loss as to fraud, the trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict); Fulton Nat. Bank, etc. v. Marshall, 245 Ga. 745, 267 S.E.2d 225 (1980) (on request, a trial court must charge the jury as to the economic measure of damages for conversion).
Although this Court has authorized the recovery of attorney fees expended in an *95 underlying action “as real damages incurred as the result of defendants’ malfeasance or misfeasance,” Marcoux v. Fields, 195 Ga.App. 573, 574, 394 S.E.2d 361 (1990), the question of fees under OCGA § 13–6–11 is for “the jury,” which has been held to mean the factfinder in the particular case. See Covington Square Assoc. v. Ingles Markets, 287 Ga. 445, 447–448, 696 S.E.2d 649 (2010). It is also true that a party cannot recover fees under authority of OCGA § 13–6–11 to the extent that the fees are expended in a prior legal proceeding. Easley v. Clement, 259 Ga. 107, 107–108, 376 S.E.2d 860 (1989) (plaintiff may recover under OCGA § 13–6–11 “only [those] attorney fees and expenses ... incurred in prosecuting the second action”).
In sum, (a) the trial court’s initial award to the estate of $25,000 in compensatory damages is affirmed with direction that it be re-entered as part of a final judgment; (b) the trial court’s award of an additional $12,000 in compensatory damages is reversed; (c) its award of attorney fees is reversed as to those fees expended in the Carroll County will contest; and (d) the remaining portion of the fee award is vacated, and the case remanded to the trial court to determine the remaining portion of fees expended in this action.

References: § 9
 v. 
 § 9
 v. 
 § 44
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 § 13