Moreno v. Smith
Georgia Supreme Court
299 Ga. 443 (2016)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Dolores Moreno (plaintiff) was the mother of Gina Moreno (defendant). Dolores owned a residential property. In 2004, Dolores gifted a one-half interest in the property to Gina. Around the same time, the parties signed a document under which Dolores agreed to sell the remaining interest in the property to Gina and Gina agreed to pay $75,000 to Dolores in $400 monthly installments. According to Gina, she signed the purported contract so that Dolores could demonstrate an income-generating property, but the parties never intended for Gina to actually pay Dolores. Dolores consistently made statements to the effect that Gina was not expected to pay anything, and over the next six years, Gina did not make any payments. Thereafter, Dolores sued Gina for breach of contract. While the lawsuit was pending, Dolores died, and her estate maintained the suit. The parties submitted conflicting evidence on summary judgment as to their intent in entering into the contract. Gina submitted sworn statements regarding the circumstances surrounding the signing of the written document. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Dolores as to breach of contract, relying on the written agreement and the parol-evidence rule and finding that Gina and Dolores entered into a binding and enforceable contract. The court further awarded damages to Dolores. Gina appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blackwell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.