Renee Unlimited Inc. v. City of Atlanta

Even though the city filed its complaint more than four years after it made its last loan disbursement, the statute of limitations did not bar the city's suit, because the city could not have known at the time that the enrichment of two defendants was unjust.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The City of Atlanta the “City” filed a complaint against Simbic, Inc. “Simbic”, Renee Unlimited, Inc. “Renee”, Joseph T. Bickers, MGG Properties, Inc. “MGG”, and Onward Financial, Inc. “Onward” alleging its entitlement to recover money the City loaned to Simbic under a federal housing loan program that was never repaid. The case proceeded to a jury trial on the City’s claim that Renee and Bickers, as Simbic’s alter egos, were unjustly enriched by loan proceeds disbursed by the City. The jury returned a verdict in the City’s favor in the amount of $731,409. Renee and Bickers now appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in i failing to decide, prior to trial, whether the City’s claim against them was barred by the statute of limitation and ii failing to grant a directed verdict in their favor at trial. We conclude that Renee and Bickers failed to invoke a ruling before trial on their motion to dismiss on grounds that the City’s claim was filed outside the statute of limitation and have waived the right to complain that the trial court erred in failing to rule on the motion. Renee and Bickers also failed to move for a directed verdict at trial. Thus, there is no error on that account. Renee and Bickers are nevertheless entitled to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. We have reviewed the trial court’s denial of their motion for new trial and entry of judgment on the jury’s verdict. As there is some evidence to support the jury’s verdict, we affirm.

“In reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial on the ground there was no evidence to support the verdict, this Court examines the record to determine whether there is any evidence to support the verdict.” Citation omitted. Maddox v. Maddox , 278 Ga. 606 1 604 SE2d 784 2004.

Renee Unlimited Inc. v. City of Atlanta

Even though the city filed its complaint more than four years after it made its last loan disbursement, the statute of limitations did not bar the city's suit, because the city could not have known at the time that the enrichment of two defendants was unjust.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report