WILLIAM T. MULLALLY v. CU CAPITAL MARKET SOLUTIONS, LLC

── WILLIAM T. MULLALLY v. CU CAPITAL MARKET SOLUTIONS, LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General FOURTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, P. J., WATKINS and PADGETT, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules June 5, 2026 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A26A0564. MULLALLY v. CU CAPITAL MARKET SOLUTIONS, LLC et al. PADGETT, Judge. William T. Mullally appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for directed verdict, or in the alternative, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”). This is the second appearance of this case before this Court. In Mullally v. CU Capital Market Solutions, LLC, 368 Ga. App. 602 (890 SE2d 494) (2023), we affirmed the trial court’s judgment finding that certain restrictive covenants in the operating agreement of CU Capital Market Solutions, LLC (“CMS”) were valid and enforceable against Mullally. Upon remand to the trial court, a jury found in favor of CMS and against Mullally on breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation claims, and awarded a total of $1,932,817.45 in damages. The trial court entered final judgment on the jury’s verdict and Mullally now appeals, arguing that CMS failed to submit sufficient proof of damages for the breach of contract claim and that the evidence did not support the jury’s verdict with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation claims. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. When reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion for JNOV ... this Court determines if there is any evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Where a jury returns a verdict and it has the approval of the trial judge, the same must be affirmed on appeal if there is any evidence to support it as the jurors are the sole and exclusive judges of the weight and credit given the evidence. The appellate court must construe the evidence with every inference and presumption in favor of upholding the verdict, and after judgment, the evidence must be construed to uphold the verdict even where the evidence is in conflict. As long as there is some evidence to support the verdict, the denial of defendant’s motion[] for ... JNOV will not be disturbed. Caldwell v. Church, 353 Ga. App. 141, 142 (836 SE2d 594) (2019) (punctuation omitted). See also Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. RM Kids, 352 Ga. App. 314, 314 (835 SE2d 21) (2019) (citing same standard for denial of motion for directed verdict); OCGA § 9-11-50. Questions of law, such as the proper measure of damages and the manner in which damages properly may be proven, see McMillian v. McMillian, 310 2 Ga. App. 735, 738 (713 SE2d 920) (2011), are reviewed de novo. Harris v. Martin, 373 Ga. App. 158, 159 (908 SE2d 17) (2024). Moreover, the direction of a verdict is proper only where there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue, and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict. When there is opinion evidence, circumstantial evidence, presumptions of fact, or evidence subject to more than one reasonable construction, the appellate courts shall carefully scrutinize the grant of a directed verdict, because such evidence may be construed as providing the “any evidence” creating a jury question. Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 352 Ga. App. at 314–15 (punctuation omitted). The factual background to the underlying dispute between the parties is recounted in our prior opinion. Here, we set forth only those facts needed to place th