Summary
In Petrakopoulos v. Vranas, 296 Ga. 48, 764 S.E.2d 858 (2014), the Supreme Court of Georgia vacated the portion of our opinion addressing Gus Vranas's purported claim for unjust enrichment because Vranas contended, for the first time, in the appeal before the Supreme Court that “he never raised an unjust enrichment claim against Alpha Soda and that no such claim exists,” although he never informed this Court that he did not intend to raise such a claim.
Summary of this case from Petrakopoulos v. VranasOpinion
No. S14G0599.
10-20-2014
PETRAKOPOULOS et al. v. VRANAS.
Eric T. Johnson, Woodstock, GA, George P. Shingler, Shingler Lewis LLC, Atlanta, GA, James Charles Watkins, Norcross, GA, for Appellants. Leon A. Van Gelderen, Kennon Peebles, Jr., for appellee.
Eric T. Johnson, Woodstock, GA, George P. Shingler, Shingler Lewis LLC, Atlanta, GA, James Charles Watkins, Norcross, GA, for Appellants.
Leon A. Van Gelderen, Kennon Peebles, Jr., for appellee.
Opinion
BENHAM, Justice.
We granted appellant Alpha Soda Company's (“Alpha Soda”) petition for a writ of certiorari for the parties to address the decision of the Court of Appeals to affirm the trial court's denial of Alpha Soda's motion for summary judgment in regard to a purported claim for unjust enrichment. Petrakopoulos v. Vranas, 325 Ga.App. 332, 750 S.E.2d 779 (2013). On appeal, appellee Gus Vranas contends he never raised an unjust enrichment claim against Alpha Soda and that no such claim exists. Therefore, that portion of the Court of Appeals's opinion concerning an unjust enrichment claim against appellant Alpha Soda is vacated.
At oral argument, appellee Vranas stated that inartful wording in his complaint concerning a claim for fraud led to the confusion now at issue. We note that Vranas never informed the Court of Appeals that he did not intend to raise an unjust enrichment claim.
--------
Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part.
All the Justices concur.