Meadow Springs Recovery LLC v. Wofford; Wofford v. Meadow Springs Recovery LLC

The plaintiffs' claims against a law firm fell within the purview of the abusive litigation statute, under which the plaintiffs should have brought the claims, thus the exclusivity provisions of OCGA § 51-7-85 preempted the claims.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

These appeals arise out of a failed real estate venture and the resulting protracted litigation between numerous parties, including the filing of a lis pendens. In this separate claim by an assignee against the law firm that filed the lis pendens, we conclude that the trial court correctly found preemption under the exclusivity provision of the abusive litigation statute, OCGA § 51-7-85, because the lawsuit seeks damages solely for the conduct of counsel in pursuing litigation on behalf of their clients. We therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees and dismiss the cross-appeal as moot.

The facts of the underlying dispute have been discussed extensively in previous appeals.1 The relevant facts with respect to the appeal before us are as follows. Nearly a decade ago, on August 6, 2003, the firm of Alston & Bird, through its partner M. Russell Wofford, Jr., filed a complaint on behalf of IH Riverdale and Geoffrey Nolan, claiming breach of their rights to exercise an option on real property in Clayton County owned by Meadow Springs, LLC. The following day, the firm filed a Notice of Lis Pendens in Clayton County, giving notice of the action and stating that it involved the described real property, as to which plaintiffs sought specific performance of an option agreement and imposition of a constructive trust. On the same day, the firm delivered a letter to Regions Bank, which had approved a development loan on the property, enclosing the complaint and a copy of the lis pendens.

Meadow Springs Recovery LLC v. Wofford; Wofford v. Meadow Springs Recovery LLC

The plaintiffs' claims against a law firm fell within the purview of the abusive litigation statute, under which the plaintiffs should have brought the claims, thus the exclusivity provisions of OCGA § 51-7-85 preempted the claims.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report