Watkins v. Hereth

Defendant could not maintain a claim against defendants for tortiously interfering with his oral right to a percentage of money due under a promissory note because he was not a party to the note and had no interest therein.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Robert Watkins filed this pro se action for damages against Colonial Gardens of Warner Robins, LLC, and its president Jack Hereth. The trial court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted, and Watkins appeals. “A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be sustained unless the allegations of the complaint reveal, with certainty, that plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of provable facts asserted in support thereof.”1 Although numerous issues are raised in the appeal, this case ultimately turns on the question of whether the allegations of the complaint state a claim for relief against Colonial Gardens and Hereth for tortious interference with an oral agreement between Watkins and Jerome and Caroline Buford. Answering that question in the negative, we affirm.

According to Watkins, Jerome and Caroline Buford owned an assisted living center which they sold to Colonial Gardens and Hereth under an asset purchase agreement. Watkins alleges that the Bufords orally agreed to remit to him and his wife one-half of the proceeds from the sale of the center in consideration of services he and his wife had rendered to the center. At the closing of the center’s sale, Hereth executed a $230,000 promissory note in favor of the Bufords. Hereth later stopped making payments under the note and made a demand for arbitration under the asset purchase agreement, based on a claim that the Bufords had artificially inflated the purchase price for the center by failing to disclose the value of the services rendered by the Watkinses. The Bufords settled the arbitration proceeding by reducing the balance due on the note to $80,000.

Watkins v. Hereth

Defendant could not maintain a claim against defendants for tortiously interfering with his oral right to a percentage of money due under a promissory note because he was not a party to the note and had no interest therein.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report