Melissa Rommelman, as mother and natural guardian of Terry and Jonathan Parker, appeals from an order of the placePlaceNameSuperiorPlaceTypeCourtPlaceNameofPlaceNameFloydPlaceNameCounty granting partial summary judgment to defendants Wade C. Hoyt, III and the Hoyt Firm collectively “Hoyt” in Rommelman’s suit for legal malpractice and unjust enrichment. The superior court entered judgment in Hoyt’s favor on Rommelman’s unjust enrichment claim to the extent she sought to recoup legal fees paid to Hoyt by his client, Laura Parker,1 in the underlying wrongful death case. Rommelman contends that this claim was not subject to summary adjudication because material issues of fact remain for jury resolution. For the reasons set forth below, we disagree and affirm.Summary judgment is 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.Citation omitted. Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp. , 226 Ga. App. 459 1 486 SE2d 684 1997. So viewed, the record reveals the following relevant, undisputed facts. Laura Parker was married to James Parker when he died of a heart attack on December 5, 2004. Laura Parker, as the surviving spouse, hired Hoyt to pursue a medical malpractice claim. Parker signed a contract with Hoyt that provided that Hoyt receive a 40 per cent contingency fee. Hoyt settled the case for $175,000. After taking his fee, Hoyt disbursed the remaining proceeds to Parker, instructing her that she was entitled to a third of those proceeds and the remaining two-thirds were to be divided equally between Parker’s four children.
On August 27, 2007, Rommelman, the decedent’s first wife and the mother of the decedent’s first two children, the plaintiffs in this case, sued Hoyt and Parker, contending that her children did not receive their share of the settlement proceeds. Rommelman does not aver that Hoyt committed malpractice by settling the suit for the amount that he did, or that his fee was inappropriate. In fact, for the purposes of the lawsuit, she stated that she assumes without admitting that the settlement amount was reasonable. Rommelman contends that Hoyt committed legal malpractice because he failed to protect the interests of Rommelman’s children by insuring that the settlement proceeds were properly distributed to them. She also contends that Hoyt was unjustly enriched “by receiving attorney’s fees generated by settlement proceeds, which should have been paid to Rommelman’s children.”
