Waller v. Rymer

The trial court's failure to define the clear and convincing evidence standard in its punitive damages charge did not require reversal under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-24c.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellee Garland V. Rymer filed a lawsuit against appellants John Waller and Gospel Light Baptist Tabernacle, Inc., seeking damages for claims of malicious prosecution, false swearing, slander, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The appellants defaulted and, following the entry of default judgment, the jury awarded Rymer compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney fees. Appellants challenge the damage award, asserting that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury, submitted an improper verdict form, and erroneously failed to bifurcate the proceedings for compensatory and punitive damages. We affirm. The facts admitted by way of default and supported by the evidence adduced at trial were as follows. Rymer, a 70-year-old man, was an officer and member of Westwood Baptist Church, Inc. For at least ten years prior to the incidents in question, Westwood had been holding its church services on property that it leased from Gospel Light. Westwood timely paid Gospel Light rent every month in exchange for its use of the property. Waller was an agent of and acting on behalf of Gospel Light.1

Sometime prior to September 2004, Waller became angry with Rymer and forbid him from returning to the Westwood property. On September 8, 2004, law enforcement officers interrupted a Westwood church service and forcibly removed Rymer from the property in response to Waller’s criminal trespass allegations. Rymer was later arrested on a criminal warrant that was issued based on Waller’s allegations of trespass. Rymer was detained for at least six hours in a small city jail cell before he was transported to the county jail, processed, and released after posting bond. In total, he spent nearly 11 hours in custody.

Waller v. Rymer

The trial court's failure to define the clear and convincing evidence standard in its punitive damages charge did not require reversal under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-24c.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report