Motor Warehouse, Inc. v. Richard, 510 S.E.2d 600 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Motor Warehouse, Inc. v. Richard, 510 S.E.2d 600 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Bell v. Waffle House, Inc. (gactapp, 2015-03-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bell v. Waffle House, Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
(Punctuation omitted.) Motor Warehouse v. Richard, 235 Ga. App. 835, 836 (2) ( 510 SE2d 600 ) (1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Haralson County v. Kimball
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
OCGA § 45-9-21 (e) (1). 2 See Motor Warehouse v. Richard, 235 Ga. App. 835, 836 (1) ( 510 SE2d 600 ). 3 The statute was held constitutional in Horn v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 247 ( 223 SE2d 647 ). 4 Like the sheriff, the clerk of the superior court is also a county officer under OCGA § 45-9-21 (e) (1).
discussed Cited "see" Kim Camille Florence v. Ally Bank Lease Trust (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brown, 255 Ga. at 458 (discretionary application was not required for appeal from judgment granting writ of possession of personal property, as applicant had right of direct appeal from the foreclosure judgment); see generally Motor Warehouse, Inc. v. Richard, 235 Ga. App. 835, 835-836 (1) ( 510 SE2d 600 ) (1998) (no discretionary application required from attorney fee award because case commenced as a petition to inspect and copy corporate records, and such a petition does not come within the 1 From the limited materials submitted with the application, it appears that the trial court ente…
discussed Cited "see" Kim Camille Florence v. Ally Bank Lease Trust (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brown, 255 Ga. at 458 (discretionary application was not required for appeal from judgment granting writ of possession of personal property, as applicant had right of direct appeal from the foreclosure judgment); see generally Motor Warehouse, Inc. v. Richard, 235 Ga. App. 835, 835-836 (1) ( 510 SE2d 600 ) (1998) (no discretionary application required from attorney fee award because case commenced as a petition to inspect and copy corporate records, and such a petition does not come within the categories of cases subject to discretionary application procedures under OCGA § 5- 6-35 (a)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jack L. Mize v. Todd Cowan, as Tax Commissioner for Douglas County (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Corp., 255 Ga. 457, 457 ( 339 SE2d 590 ) (1986) (interpreting OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6) to apply “when a party seeking a money judgment prevails”; statute did not apply to personal property foreclosure case); see also Motor Warehouse v. Richard, 235 Ga. App. 835, 835-836 (1) ( 510 SE2d 600 ) (1998) (no discretionary application required to appeal judgment arising from petition for inspecting and copying corporate records); Kelly v. Pierce Roofing Co., 220 Ga. App. 391, 391-392 ( 469 SE2d 469 ) (1996) (OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6) did not apply because “action arose as a complaint on a property li…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." George Bell v. Waffle House, Inc. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Mitcham v. Blalock, 214 Ga. App. 29, 32-33 (2) ( 447 SE2d 83 ) (1994) (remanding for a hearing to address a claim for fees pursuant to OCGA § 9- 11-37 for discovery abuses), overruled in part on other grounds by Felix v. State, 271 Ga. 534 , 537 ( 523 SE2d 1 ) (1999). 4 for attorney fees has a basic right to confront and challenge testimony as to the value and need for legal services.”6 Waffle House notes that OCGA § 9-11-68 (b) does not explicitly require a hearing, but another subsection, OCGA § 9-11-68 (e), does.7 Therefore, it argues that the General Assembly did not intend f…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Grapefields, Inc. v. Kosby (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: compare · confidence medium
See Tavakolian v. Agio Corp., 304 Ga. App. 660, 663-664 ( 697 SE2d 233 ) (2010); compare Motor Warehouse v. Richard, 235 Ga. App. 835, 836 ( 510 SE2d 600 ) (1998).
MOTOR WAREHOUSE, INC.
v.
RICHARD
A98A2341.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Dec 23, 1998.
510 S.E.2d 600
Wetzel & Associates, Michael L. Wetzel, for appellant., Bodker, Ramsey & Andrews, David J. Maslia, for appellee.
Andrews.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
Andrews, Chief Judge.

Janet Macintosh Richard, as executrix of the Estate of Robert Donald Macintosh, petitioned the Superior Court of DeKalb County for an order compelling Motor Warehouse, Inc. (Motor Warehouse) to allow the Estate to inspect and copy records of Motor Warehouse. Richard’s petition also requested an award of the costs, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred in obtaining the requested order. In a May 19, 1998 order, the trial court granted Richard’s petition for inspection and also found that Motor Warehouse did not act in good faith when it denied Richard’s request for an inspection of its records. Richard then petitioned for an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to OCGA § 14-2-1604 and attached an affidavit from her counsel, David Maslia, in support of this petition. In a June 24, 1998 order, the trial court awarded Richard $4,173.84 for the Estate’s costs, including reasonable attorney fees. The trial court also denied Motor Warehouse’s motion to strike David Maslia’s affidavit. The trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing on the petition for costs.

Motor Warehouse filed a notice of direct appeal from the trial court’s June 24,1998 order on July 7,1998. Richard moved to dismiss this appeal because Motor Warehouse “failed to comply with the discretionary appellate procedure pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35.” For reasons which follow, we deny Richard’s motion to dismiss this appeal and remand for a hearing on the issue of costs, including attorney fees.

1. Richard asserts the order from which Motor Warehouse appeals is not directly appealable because the amount awarded in the order does not exceed $10,000. OCGA § 5-6-35 outlines the categories of cases subject to discretionary appellate review and one of these categories is “[a]ppeals in all actions for damages in which the judgment is $10,000.00 or less.” OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6). Since this action arose as a petition for inspection and copying of corporate records, we find this matter is correctly before us by direct appeal under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). While the amount of attorney fees awarded by the trial court under OCGA § 14-2-1604 (c) is less than[*836] $10,000, a petition for inspection and copying of corporate records is not an action for damages necessitating a discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6). Cf. Kelly v. Pierce Roofing Co., 220 Ga. App. 391 (469 SE2d 469) (1996); Walker v. Ga. Power Co., 177 Ga. App. 493 (339 SE2d 728) (1986).

We reject Richard’s contention that the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in MTW Investment Co. v. Vanguard Properties Financial Corp., 256 Ga. 318 (349 SE2d 749) (1986), mandates a different result. In MTW, the Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s conclusion that attorney fees awarded under OCGA § 13-6-11 are “damages” within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6). OCGA § 13-6-11 specifically provides that a jury may award expenses of litigation “as a part of the damages” when the defendant has acted in bad faith, been stubbornly litigious or caused unnecessary trouble and expense.

In this case, the fees were awarded under OCGA § 14-2-1604 (c) which provides: “If the court orders inspection and copying of the records demanded, it shall also order the corporation to pay the shareholder’s costs (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) incurred to obtain the order unless the corporation proves that it refused inspection in good faith because it had a reasonable basis for doubt about the right of the shareholder to inspect the records demanded.” (Emphasis supplied.) Since the attorney fees in this case were awarded as costs under OCGA § 14-2-1604 (c) and not damages under OCGA § 13-6-11, the MTW decision does not control.

2. Having determined that this appeal is properly before us, we now address the propriety of the trial court’s June 24, 1998 order. “A party opposing a claim for attorney fees has a basic right to confront and challenge testimony as to the value and need for legal services.” Mitcham v. Blalock, 214 Ga. App. 29, 32-33 (2) (447 SE2d 83) (1994). See also Oden v. Legacy Ford-Mercury, 222 Ga. App. 666, 669 (3) (476 SE2d 43) (1996). In this case, Motor Warehouse was deprived of this right because the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on Richard’s petition for the award of costs. We therefore vacate the trial court’s order awarding Richard $4,173.84 and remand this case for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the amount of costs, including reasonable attorney fees, which should be awarded to Richard under OCGA § 14-2-1604 (c). See Southern Cellular Telecom v. Banks, 209 Ga. App. 401, 402 (433 SE2d 606) (1993); First Union Nat. Bank v. Davies-Elliott, Inc., 215 Ga. App. 498, 503 (452 SE2d 132) (1994); Cohen v. Feldman, 219 Ga. App. 90, 92 (464 SE2d 237) (1995).

Judgment vacated and remanded with direction.

Pope, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur. [*837] Decided December 23, 1998. Wetzel & Associates, Michael L. Wetzel, for appellant. Bodker, Ramsey & Andrews, David J. Maslia, for appellee.