GAMMA HOMES, LLC v. ATLANTA REAL ESTATE SPECIALTY GROUP, LLC

── GAMMA HOMES, LLC v. ATLANTA REAL ESTATE SPECIALTY GROUP, LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General SECOND DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., DAVIS, J., and SENIOR JUDGE FULLER 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.gov/rules June 5, 2026 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A26A0226. GAMMA HOMES, LLC et al. v. ATLANTA REAL ESTATE SPECIALTY GROUP, LLC. DOYLE, Presiding Judge. Following a bench trial, the plaintiffs,1 a group of limited liability companies controlled by Hans Klein for the purpose of owning and operating real estate investment properties, appeal from the involuntary dismissal of their suit against Atlanta Real Estate Specialty Group, LLC, (“ARESG”) under OCGA § 9-11-41(b). They contend that the trial court erred because (1) there was evidence to support an 1 The plaintiffs are: Gamma Homes, LLC; Garden 443, LLC; Bristol Lands, LLC; JWest Investments, LLC; Horizon Listings, LLC; Barrel South, LLC; JCT Property, LLC; Fulton West Residential, LLC; White 44, LLC; Twelve Trees, LLC; Fremont Links, LLC; Seven Seven Line, LLC; Atmosphere Homes, LLC; WWK Attractive, LLC; Lawful Wheels, LLC; Channel TT, LLC; Discover Laurel, LLC; and Lawn Marcy, LLC (collectively, “the Plaintiffs”). award of damages, aside from certain disputed exhibits not admitted by the trial court; (2) the disputed exhibits were nevertheless admissible both as (a) business records and (b) as admissions by a party opponent; and (3) the plaintiffs have demonstrated a viable claim for attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. In reviewing a bench trial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s rulings, defer to the trial court’s credibility judgments, and will not set aside the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. A trial court’s involuntary dismissal of a claim pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-41 (b)2 may be reversed only if the evidence demands a contrary finding. But a trial court’s conclusions of law are subject to de novo review[, a]nd the application of the wrong legal standard may be reversible error. Smith v. Northside Hosp., Inc., 302 Ga. 517, 520 (807 SE2d 909) (2017) (cleaned up). 2 OCGA § 9-11-41(b) provides, in relevant part: After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. 2  The facts material to this appeal are undisputed. Through the Plaintiffs, Klein owns and operates a number of residential rental properties in Atlanta.3 Each of the Plaintiffs executed nearly identical property management agreements (“PMAs”) with ARESG, operated by Robert Taylor, who provided property management services, including collecting rent, paying expenses, and making monthly disbursements of remaining balances to the property owner. Under the PMAs, ARESG deposited rent payments into trust accounts, and ARESG was required to provide a “detailed monthly accounting of funds ... received and disbursed on [o]wner’s behalf,” with the remaining amount (over a certain balance) remitted to the owner monthly. To meet the obligation to provide monthly accounting, Taylor granted Klein access to an owner’s portal in a software platform called Buildium, which Taylor used to input data and document income, expenses, and disbursements with the understandin