Davis v. Rich's Department Stores, Inc.

Citations: 545 S.E.2d 661; 248 Ga. App. 116; 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 816; 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 193Docket: A00A1980

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; February 19, 2001; Georgia; State Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Bradford Davis appealed the trial court's summary judgment favoring Rich's Department Stores, Inc., regarding claims of tortious misconduct and violations of the Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA). The court found no evidence that Rich's engaged in unfair practices or mistreated Davis, affirming the summary judgment. The court clarified that summary judgment is warranted when no genuine material facts are in dispute. In December 1994, an unknown individual fraudulently used Davis's identity to open credit accounts, including with Rich's. Davis learned of the fraud in mid-December and reported it to the police and Credit Bureau but did not contact Rich's until April 1995 after receiving multiple bills. During his communications with Rich's, he was advised to provide identification and a notarized statement of fraud, which he eventually submitted in September 1995, though he could not explain the delay. Rich's claimed they never received this documentation. Subsequently, Davis discovered an unpaid debt to Rich's on his credit report and sent a certified letter requesting the clearing of his account. Rich's fraud supervisor testified that the store did not investigate fraud claims without the required documentation and admitted turning the account over to collections without investigating Davis's claim. The trial court ruled that the FBPA does not apply to isolated incidents from private transactions and determined that Rich's actions did not constitute tortious misconduct, as the FBPA aims to protect the broader consumer marketplace from unfair or deceptive practices.

The FBPA does not provide a private remedy for individuals harmed by acts or practices that do not affect the general consuming public, limiting its applicability to more public transactions. Davis contends that Rich's actions related to debt collection, particularly in cases of credit fraud, fall under the FBPA; however, this misrepresents Wilson's testimony, which acknowledged that Rich's might refer accounts to collections despite fraud claims if proper documentation was not provided. The handling of Davis's fraud complaint was part of a broader store policy, but whether this constitutes an 'unfair or deceptive act or practice' under the FBPA is typically a jury question, though this case is seen as clear enough for a legal resolution. Davis's argument that Rich's policy is unfair is countered by the fact that the requirements for fraud claim investigations are not unreasonable, especially since Davis complied after some delay. While Rich's may have delayed investigating Davis's claim, this is viewed as an isolated incident lacking broader public impact, thus falling outside the FBPA's scope. The trial court correctly granted summary judgment for Rich's concerning both the FBPA claim and Davis's claim of tortious misconduct, which requires evidence of abusive behavior not present in this case. Davis's claims of 'two years of dunning' do not meet the standard for tortious misconduct, as this tort is based on direct abusive interactions, which were absent. The judgment is affirmed.

OCGA 10-1-390 et seq. outlines the Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA) in Georgia. In the case of Testamentary Trust of Moseley v. Barnes, Davis claimed that a Credit Bureau employee indicated that all his creditors would be informed of certain matters. He also raised allegations of invasion of privacy and libel but later dismissed the invasion of privacy claim and did not contest the summary judgment on the libel claim. Although Davis argued that Rich's did not address a specific legal question, the record indicates that Rich's raised the issue in its summary judgment brief. 

Citations from various cases clarify that a customer cannot sue a car dealership under the FBPA for misrepresentations unless there is evidence of public advertising related to the claim. Additionally, it was noted that Rich's claimed it did not receive certain documents, but the facts are interpreted in favor of Davis. The trial court did not rule on whether Rich's actions constituted an unfair practice under the FBPA, but the issue was briefed by both parties. Summary judgment can be affirmed for any valid reason. Finally, a comparison is made to a case where tortious misconduct was found due to a store clerk's false accusations in front of customers, suggesting that context and actions can lead to differing legal outcomes.