Udoinyion v. Re/Max of Atlanta

Plaintiff failed to show that defendants' repeated, unwanted attempts to show the plaintiff's for sale house to prospective buyers constituted trespass, invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Sunday N. Udoinyion sued Re/Max of Atlanta a real estate brokerage business and two real estate agents affiliated with Re/Max, Bill Reed and Katie Milling, seeking damages for: 1 trespass on his property in violation of OCGA § 51-9-1; 2 invasion of privacy; 3 wilful misrepresentation of material fact in violation of OCGA § 51-6-2, and 4 intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of these claims, and Udoinyion appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm. The record shows that, after Udoinyion put his house up for sale, Reed and Milling contacted him on multiple occasions for the purpose of showing the house to prospective buyers. According to Udoinyion, the jury issues raised in his suit are “whether a continued, unwanted solicitation by a real estate agent over time could constitute the torts of trespass, invasion of privacy, misrepresentation of fact, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.” In response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Udoinyion argued: 1 that the invasion of privacy claim was supported by showing that Reed harassed and pestered him by calling him on the telephone to inquire about the availability of his house after he told him not to call; 2 that the trespass claim under OCGA § 51-9-1 was supported by showing that Reed came onto his property without permission and remained for a period of time after being asked to leave, and that Milling came onto his property by fraudulently obtaining consent, and 3 that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was supported by showing that the defendants’ conduct was intentional, reckless, and extreme, and that it caused him severe emotional distress.

In response to the motion for summary judgment, Udoinyion also filed his affidavit, which stated the following:

Udoinyion v. Re/Max of Atlanta

Plaintiff failed to show that defendants' repeated, unwanted attempts to show the plaintiff's for sale house to prospective buyers constituted trespass, invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report