Ellis v. Gallof, 469 S.E.2d 288 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Ellis v. Gallof, 469 S.E.2d 288 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“pjlaintiffs must prevail on their basic cause of action in order to obtain litigation expenses under ocga 13-6-11.”
20 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Georgia Department of Community Health v. Data Inquiry, LLC (gactapp, 2012-01-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Georgia Department of Community Health v. Data Inquiry, LLC (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2012 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
pjlaintiffs must prevail on their basic cause of action in order to obtain litigation expenses under ocga 13-6-11.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Allen
N.D. Ga. · 2026 · confidence medium
And because Allen “must prevail on [her] basic cause of action in order to obtain litigation expenses [under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11],” Ellis v. Gallof, 220 Ga. App. 518, 519 (1996) (quoting Barnett v. Morrow, 196 Ga. App. 201, 203 (1990)), which she has not done, her claim for attorneys’ fees must be dismissed as well.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bufford v. Brown
N.D. Ga. · 2025 · confidence medium
See Johnson v. Johnson, 323 Ga. App. 836, 842 (2013) (punitive damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1); Ellis v. Gallof, 220 Ga. App. 518, 519 (1996) (attorneys’ fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6- 11); Amnesty Int’l, USA v. Battle, 559 F.3d 1170 , 1178 n.3 (11th Cir. 2009) (punitive damages under § 1983); 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (attorneys’ fees under § 1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Graphic Packaging Holding Company vs Stephen M. Humphrey
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
Ellis v. Gallof 220 Ga. App. 518 , 469 S.E.2d 288, 289 (1996). *9 Graphic Packaging has not done so in this case, and we thus affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Humphrey on Graphic Packaging’s claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carey v. Houston Oral Surgeons, LLC
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
These legal services were incurred in drafting the counterclaim in Civil Action 2001-V-70504-L, and devising legal strategy relating to that action, the lawsuit that the Settlement Memorandum required the “Parties to dismiss w/out prejudice.” 7 See Ellis v. Gallof, 220 Ga. App. 518, 519 (1) ( 469 SE2d 288 ) (1996) (although OCGA § 13-6-11 is not limited to prevailing parties, a plaintiff must prevail on his basic cause of action in order to obtain litigation expenses under OCGA § 13-6-11). 8 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Bradley v. British Fitting Group, 221 Ga. App. 621, 624 (3) …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Department of Transportation v. Georgia Television Co.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Co. v. Boykin, 174 Ga. App. 269, 275 (7) ( 329 SE2d 900 ) (1985). 7 Compare Stone v. King, 196 Ga. App. 251, 252 (3) ( 396 SE2d 45 ) (1990). 8 State v. Croom, 168 Ga. App. 145, 146 (1) ( 308 SE2d 427 ) (1983). 9 Jacobsen v. Muller, 181 Ga. App. 382, 384 (3) ( 352 SE2d 604 ) (1986). 10 See Williams, supra at 893 (1). 11 See Jamison v. West, 191 Ga. App. 431, 433 (4) ( 382 SE2d 170 ) (1989); Carroll v. Johnson, 144 Ga. App. 750, 753 (4) ( 242 SE2d 296 ) (1978). 12 Ellis v. Gallof, 220 Ga. App. 518, 519 (1) ( 469 SE2d 288 ) (1996); Barnett v. Morrow, 196 Ga. App. 201, 203 ( 396 SE2d 11 ) (1990). …
discussed Cited "see" Ace Technologies, Inc. v. Pmcs, Inc. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ellis v. Gallof 220 Ga. App. 518, 519 (1) ( 469 SE2d 288 ) (1996) (attorney fees available only to prevailing party).
discussed Cited "see" Discovery Point Franchising, Inc. v. Miller (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ellis v. Gallof, 220 Ga. App. 518, 519 (1) ( 469 SE2d 288 ) (1996); Barnett v. Morrow, 196 Ga. App. 201, 203 ( 396 SE2d 11 ) (1990).
discussed Cited "see" State of Ga. v. City of East Ridge, Tenn. (2×)
N.D. Ga. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ellis v. Gallof, 220 Ga.App. 518 , 469 S.E.2d 288, 289 (1996) (affirming jury verdict in favor of plaintiff for both nuisance and trespass claims in water damage case).
ELLIS Et Al.
v.
GALLOF Et Al.
A95A2590.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Feb 8, 1996.
469 S.E.2d 288
Mottern & Van Gelderen, Leon A. Van Gelderen, for appellants., Holt, Ney, Zatcoff & Wasserman, Jay F. Castle, for appellees.
Beasley, Pope, Ruffin.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 76%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Georgia (1)
Beasley, Chief Judge.

The Gallofs filed a complaint against their neighbors the Ellises, seeking abatement of a nuisance; damages for maintenance of the nuisance, trespass, and breach of restrictive covenants; and attorney fees and litigation expenses under OCGA § 13-6-11.

The Gallofs claimed that the Ellises modified the grade and topography of their property by construction of a swimming pool in[*519] their backyard, thereby causing surface water that once flowed from the Gallofs’ property onto and across the Ellises’ property to collect in the Gallofs’ yard.

In a counterclaim, the Ellises claimed that the Gallofs constructed an addition to their house in violation of restrictive covenants and local ordinances, thereby altering the natural flow of water from their land and causing water to concentrate, and silt and other matter to flow, on the Ellises’ land. The Ellises sought damages against the Gallofs for trespass and nuisance, as well as litigation costs and expenses.

On the Gallofs’ complaint, the jury awarded $1,451 for nuisance, trespass, and breach of restrictive covenants, plus $13,500 in attorney fees and litigation expenses. On the Ellises’ counterclaim, the jury awarded $1,500 for trespass and nuisance but no litigation costs and expenses. The final judgment gives the Gallofs a net recovery of $13,451. The court also granted their request for nuisance abatement, requiring the Ellises to pay for certain corrective work in an amount not to exceed $2,000 and ordering the Gallofs to pay any additional amounts. At a hearing, the court stated it understood the work would cost approximately $4,000.

1. The Ellises contend that the court erred in awarding the Gallofs attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11 which, if excluded, results in an award of $49 more to the Ellises on their counterclaim than to the Gallofs on their complaint. Therefore, the Ellises assert, the Gallofs were not the prevailing parties.

Although OCGA § 13-6-11, by its terms, is not limited to prevailing parties, “the correct principle is that plaintiffs must prevail on their basic cause of action in order to obtain litigation expenses [under OCGA § 13-6-11]. . . Barnett v. Morrow, 196 Ga. App. 201, 203 (396 SE2d 11) (1990). Accord Cora v. Wagner, 196 Ga. App. 774, 775 (1) (397 SE2d 46) (1990).

The Gallofs also contend that, even though the jury did award more damages to the Ellises than to them on the parties’ underlying claims, they prevailed nonetheless since they were also granted affirmative equitable relief. That is true, but the equitable relief consisted of an order that corrective work be done, and the Gallofs were required to pay for a portion of it. From the record, it cannot be determined whether the Gallofs will be required to pay more than, less than, or the same amount as the Ellises. Consequently, the Gallofs were not established as the prevailing parties. Compare Adams v. Cowart, 224 Ga. 210, 214 (6) (160 SE2d 805) (1968). The award of attorney fees must be reversed.

2. The remaining enumeration, which attacks the award of attorney fees on other grounds, is moot.

Judgment reversed.

Pope, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur. [*520] Decided February 8, 1996 Reconsideration denied March 8, 1996 Mottern & Van Gelderen, Leon A. Van Gelderen, for appellants. Holt, Ney, Zatcoff & Wasserman, Jay F. Castle, for appellees.