Partners in a business owe a fiduciary duty of utmost good faith to one another. This duty is stated in a Georgia statute and is not discretionary to the partners. O.C.G.A. Section 23-2-58.
One partner cannot dissolve a partnership in order to take the business and partnership investments. He is required to act in a manner for the good of his partner as well as for the good of the partnership itself. Jordan v. Moses, Case No. S11G1772 (May 7, 2012, Ga. Supreme Court).
Search This Blog
A Blog about Real Estate, How it Can Be Damaged, and Disputes Over its Transfer
This blog is a personal blog written to discuss legal issues affecting Georgia property, and how it is damaged, transferred, and fought over. I write this partly to keep abreast of the law, and partly to offer a forum for my writing. In order to find content, I often analyze Georgia Supreme Court decisions. I try to update this blog as I can, but writing is a time consuming process.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
In a recent case involving a dispute over a property line, the Georgia Supreme Court vacated a consent judgment entered by the court. The supreme court found that getting permits from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources was a condition of the agreement. Allen v. Sea Gardens Seafood, Inc., Case No. S111912 (March 19, 2012). The trial court's decision to delete this condition as part of the settlement negated the settlement agreement because the supreme court found the parties had agreed on the allegedly unfulfilled condition.
In East Georgia Land Development Co. v. Newton County, Georgia, Case No. S12A0114 (March 19, 2012, Ga. Supreme Ct.), the Georgia Supreme Court reiterated that formalities are required for the adoption of zoning ordinances under the Zoning Procedures Law, O.C.G.A. Section 36-66-1, et seq. The case held that there was an issue regarding whether the county had a valid zoning ordinance due to an alleged failure to attach a copy of the zoning ordinance to the minutes of the meeting of the board of commissioners. The case also found that there was an issue regarding whether the county had valid zoning maps.