The firm’s previous successes are not predictive of success with your particular matter. Each case is different. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits. The firm cannot ethically make promises or guarantees regarding the successful conclusion of your matter.
Realty Professionals, Inc. v. De La Valette
377 Ga. App. 819 (2025) — Represented a homebuyer on cross-appeal in a dispute arising from a terminated real-estate purchase agreement and a $48,600 brokerage-commission claim; obtained vacatur of an improperly re-entered judgment and dismissal of the brokerage’s appeal.
Kings Point Manor, LLC v. Herrera
2025 Ga. Super. LEXIS 2430 — Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a quiet-title and declaratory-judgment action as an impermissible collateral attack, preserving clients’ superior judgment liens through res judicata and collateral estoppel; affirmed on appeal.
In re Estate of Cheeley, Jr.
376 Ga. App. 159 (2025) — Represented an executor in securing affirmance of the dismissal of fiduciary-duty and attorney-fee claims. The decision resolved an issue of first impression under Georgia probate law, holding that estate creditors lack standing to recover damages for an executor’s breach of fiduciary duty.
Fowler v. WBL SPO I, LLC
366 Ga. App. 87 (2022) Obtained affirmance of an order striking defamation and business-tort claims under Georgia’s anti-SLAPP statute. The court held that a challenge to alleged unlawful debt-collection practices constituted protected petitioning activity.
Johnson v. Cordtz
366 Ga. App. 87 (2022) Obtained affirmance of an order striking defamation and business-tort claims under Georgia’s anti-SLAPP statute. The court held that a challenge to alleged unlawful debt-collection practices constituted protected petitioning activity.
DelPiano v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. I
345 Ga. App. 151 (2018) (Georgia Court of Appeals reversal of trial court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings to a bank seeking equitable reformation of the security deed improperly encumbering the firm’s client’s property);
Vargo v. Adams
302 Ga. 637 (2017) (Supreme Court of Georgia’s precedent-setting affirmation of trial court’s denial of equitable partition of real property to an unmarried couple, and a case that presents an important lesson to unmarried people seeking to own property together without a prior agreement);
Nadel v. Branch Banking and Trust Co.
340 Ga. App. 213 (2017) (Georgia Court of Appeals case reversing the trial court’s confirmation of a non-judicial foreclosure sale due to insufficiency of notice of the hearing);
Gulia v. North Atlanta Bank
334 Ga. App. 701 (2015) (Georgia Court of Appeals case affirming the sufficiency of the trial court’s notice of a non-judicial foreclosure confirmation hearing);
Stoudemire v. HSBC Bank USA
333 Ga. App. 374 (2015) (Georgia Court of Appeals case relating to the facial invalidity of assignments of security deeds and addressing the issue of the “time-travelling” notary public);
An v. Active Pest Control South, Inc.
313 Ga. App. 110 (2011) (Georgia Court of Appeals reversal of a trial court’s grant of summary judgment against the firm’s client regarding structural pest-control company’s grossly negligent treatment and monitoring of termite infestation);
Shiva Management v. Walker II
308 Ga.App. 878 (2011) (Georgia Court of Appeals reversal of a trial court’s grant of summary judgment against the firm’s client regarding a slander-of-title claim arising out of a broken contract to purchase real estate);
Lumsden v. Williams
307 Ga. App. 163 (2010) (Georgia Court of Appeals reversal of trial court’s grant of summary judgment against the firm’s clients (the purchasers) in connection with a real estate purchase contract regarding which the sellers argued that the purchasers’ efforts to repair damages that the sellers refused to repair waived the purchaser’s warranty rights; at trial, jury returned highly favorable verdict to the purchasers; the first case in Georgia to interpret the “Repair Act” O.C.G.A. § 8-2-36, et seq., and the first case addressing the Ga. Dept. of Community Affairs’s authority to adopt certain uniform building codes);
Otero v. Vito, et al
2009 WL 3063426, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86638 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 22, 2009) (U.S. District Court’s granting summary judgment in favor of the firm’s client thus unraveling a massive and complex fraudulent conveyance scheme that had been protecting millions in assets — and that the firm was able to discover, freeze, and then help collect for its client);
DuPree v. South Atlantic Conference of Seventh Day Adventists
299 Ga. App. 352 (2009), (cert. denied 1/12/10) (Georgia Court of Appeals reversal of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against the firm’s client (the purchaser) in connection with a real estate purchase contract with respect to which it was determined that a jury should determine whether the seller could be considered to have waived certain terms in the contract that it raised as justification for refusing to complete the transaction);
Shiva Management v. Walker I
283 Ga. 338 (2008) (Supreme Court of Georgia reversal of a trial court’s injunction against the firm’s client’s non-judicial foreclosure proceeding and clarifying rules affecting non-judicial foreclosures in Georgia);
Amin v. Guruom
280 Ga. 873 (2006) (quiet-title case in which amicus brief filed by the firm persuaded the Supreme Court of Georgia to reverse itself upon reconsideration — an extremely rare event — and to adopt a rule affecting parties prosecuting deed-reformation claims of predecessor property owners);
Tidwell v. Bassett
271 Ga. App. 867, 611 S.E.2d 123 (2005) (often-cited case clarifying rules affecting deed reformation in Georgia);
PlayNation Play Systems, Inc. v. Howard
(In re Howard)
2004 WL 5848047, 2004 Bankr.LEXIS 1804 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Sept. 24, 2004) (unreported adversary proceeding in which the firm persuaded a bankruptcy judge to deny a bankruptcy discharge to a judgment debtor of its client);
Authentic Architectural Millworks v. SCM Group USA
262 Ga. App. 826 (2003) (Court of Appeals often-cited case reversing the trial court’s adverse decision against the firm’s client, clarifying rules affecting businesses’ lost profits claims, and addressing rescission requirements in the context of fraud claims);