Dyer v. Honea

The pendency of plaintiff's viable claims against other defendants did not bar his legal malpractice claim because the alleged malpractice did not arise out of the defending attorney's handling of any pending litigation.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Pursuant to a contract executed on September 25, 1995, Wayne C. Dyer purchased Joel’s Restaurant and Catering “the restaurant” in Gwinnett County for $60,000. The restaurant was owned by Joel’s Fine Foods, Inc. “JFFI”, a corporation closely held by Joel Honea “J. Honea”, and his father, Robert Honea “R. Honea”. The closing was handled by the Honeas’ long-time counsel and JFFI’s registered agent, Wayne A. Bailey. During the closing, J. Honea and R. Honea each executed an affidavit averring that there were no liens or encumbrances against the restaurant. Dyer subsequently discovered numerous liens against JFFI and a security interest in the restaurant’s equipment. He also determined that profit and loss statements on which he relied in making the purchase were inaccurate. After borrowing money to keep the restaurant afloat, Dyer finally closed it in December 1995 and sold its assets for $6,400.1

Dyer then sued J. Honea, R. Honea, JFFI, Bailey, and Leslie J. Knight. Dyer alleged that Knight, a friend of J. Honea, represented himself as J. Honea’s accountant and showed him financial data supporting the profit and loss statements at issue. Dyer further alleged that JFFI, through the Honeas, as well as the Honeas individually, intentionally misrepresented the restaurant’s financial condition and that those misrepresentations induced Dyer to purchase the restaurant; that the Honeas, Knight and JFFI conspired to defraud him; and that the corporate veil of JFFI should be pierced to permit holding the Honeas personally liable. In addition, Dyer asserted a breach of contract claim against the Honeas and JFFI based on their alleged failure to satisfy the restaurant’s debts.

Dyer v. Honea

The pendency of plaintiff's viable claims against other defendants did not bar his legal malpractice claim because the alleged malpractice did not arise out of the defending attorney's handling of any pending litigation.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report