The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Spearman v. Flanders
Court of Appeals of Georgia

Spearman v. Flanders

54254·Judge: Bell, McMurray, Smith·Attorney: Jack W. Carter, Edward Parrish, for appellants., Griffis & Thomas, Tom W. Thomas, for appellee.6 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • 143 Ga. App. 759 (1977) 240 S.E.2d 141 SPEARMAN et al. v. FLANDERS. 54254. Co...
  • SPEARMAN et al. v. FLANDERS.
  • Court of Appeals of Georgia.
  • Judgment affirmed. McMurray and Smith, JJ., concur.

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • 143 Ga. App. 759 (1977) 240 S.E.2d 141 SPEARMAN et al. v. FLANDERS. 54254. Co...
  • SPEARMAN et al. v. FLANDERS.
  • Court of Appeals of Georgia.
  • Judgment affirmed. McMurray and Smith, JJ., concur.

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

143 Ga. App. 759 (1977)
240 S.E.2d 141

SPEARMAN et al.
v.
FLANDERS.

54254.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Submitted June 28, 1977.
Decided October 13, 1977.
Rehearing Denied November 7, 1977.

*760 Jack W. Carter, Edward Parrish, for appellants.

Griffis & Thomas, Tom W. Thomas, for appellee.

BELL, Chief Judge.

This is a breach of contract suit in which plaintiff obtained a judgment based on a jury verdict for $2,500, plus $400 attorney fees.

The parties entered into contracts for the sale and renovation of real property for about $16,000 for use as a cafe on February 12, 1976, with no closing date specified. Plaintiff made a $2,500 down payment at the time the contracts were executed. By August 1976, the renovation work had not been completed despite numerous remonstrations by the plaintiff to complete the work. It was also shown that there were 9 recorded judgment liens against the property totaling about $10,000, in addition to a $10,000 deed to secure debt. Plaintiff was ready and willing to close the sale on August 13, 1976 if she could get clear title, but defendants never contacted her. A demand for return of the $2,500 payment was refused. Held:

1. The foregoing evidence authorized the jury to return a verdict for plaintiff. It was also sufficient to show that defendants acted in bad faith in the transaction as it shows a lack of intention by defendants to perform their obligation under the contracts. Thus an award of attorney fees was also authorized. Code § 20-1404.

2. The claimed error in the charge to the jury has no merit.

Judgment affirmed. McMurray and Smith, JJ., concur.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap