Moses v. Jordan

Mary Helen Moses appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her former partner, Randall Jordan, on her counterclaim against him for wrongful dissolution of their law partnership. She asserts the trial court erred in 1 granting summary judgment on the wrongful dissolution claim, 2 granting Jordan’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with regard to the dissolution date of the partnership, 3 granting a protective order to Jordan with regard to her requests for admission, and 4 ordering her to file personal property with the clerk of the court and subsequently providing it to Jordan. For the reasons set forth below, we find merit in all of these claims and reverse. Summary judgment is only proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. “A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp. , 226 Ga. App. 459 1 486 SE2d 684 1997.

So viewed, the record shows that in 2000, Moses began practicing law as a contract attorney for Jordan’s law firm, Jordan & Bristol “J & B” in Brunswick, Georgia. The majority of Moses’s work involved the “preparation of motions and briefs at the trial and appellate level.”