BJL Enterprise, LLC. BJL appeals from the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment to Level One Contact, Inc. Level One, Paul Winters, Janet Winters, and Jeffrey Winters on all claims made against them except for the claim for payment of past due rent on the commercial lease between Level One and the predecessor in interest of BJL, which remains pending below. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A defendant moving for summary judgment may put forth evidence to show that there is no issue of fact as to one or more elements of the plaintiff’s causes of action or demonstrate that the record lacks sufficient evidence to support one or more of the plaintiff’s causes of action. We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in favor of the nonmovant.1 1. This matter was previously before this court on appeal by Level One of the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict in favor of BJL for breach of the commercial lease and fraudulent conveyance of corporate assets.2 The underlying facts of the dispute are fully set out in that opinion. As found therein: In January 2008, BJL Enterprises filed suit against Level One and Samuel Winters for the unpaid rent due on the lease, fraudulent conveyances, stubborn litigiousness, bad faith, and punitive damages. Level One and Winters counterclaimed for failure to return their security deposit pursuant to the lease, conversion, trespass to property, attorney fees, and punitive damages. A jury found in favor of BJL Enterprises and against Level One in the amount of $103,954 in past due rent, $67,734 in attorney fees and expenses of litigation pursuant to the lease, and $1 for attorney fees for stubborn litigiousness and bad faith. The jury found in favor of BJL Enterprises and against Winters for fraudulent conveyance in the amount of $103,954, and $1 for attorney fees for stubborn litigiousness and bad faith. Level One and Winters appeal, alleging 1 the trial court erred in denying their motions for directed verdict because BJL Enterprises lacked standing to pursue its claims and because the lease was terminated; 2 the trial court erred in failing to let them challenge the attorney fees evidence proffered by BJL Enterprises; 3 the trial court erred in failing to reduce the amount of attorney fees awarded against Level One as required by statute; and 4 the trial court erred in awarding pre-trial discovery sanctions to BJL Enterprises based on a finding that Level One and Winters withheld documents during discovery. We reverse the trial court’s judgment with respect to the attorney fees awarded pursuant to the lease because the amount is limited by statute. However, we affirm the trial court’s order and judgment on all other issues.3 As found by the court below in this litigation,
Prior to the conclusion of BJL 1,4 BJL filed a virtually identical second lawsuit the instant action or “BJL 2″ against Level One and Samuel Winters “Samuel”. The primary distinction is that BJL added as defendants Janet Winters “Janet” Samuel’s wife and Jeffrey Winters “Jeffrey” Samuel and Janet’s son. In BJL 2, BJL has again brought claims for Breach of Contract Count 1, Fraudulent Conveyance Count II, “Stubborn Litigiousness and Bad Faith,” Count III, and Punitive Damages Count IV, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Count V. Plaintiff has also brought a new claim seeking the imposition of a Constructive Trust against Janet and Samuel’s residence Count VI . . . . Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Defendants contend that summary judgment is proper because: 1 none of the individual Defendants can be liable on BJL’s breach of contract claim; 2 the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel bar relitigation of BJL’s fraudulent conveyance claim; 3 BJL’s breach of fiduciary duty claim fails as a matter of law; and 4 BJL is not entitled to equitable relief in the form of a constructive trust because it has an adequate remedy at law. Because the trial court’s thorough and well-reasoned order fully explains the judgment entered and no reversible error of law appears, the trial court’s order is hereby adopted as the opinion of this court on all enumerations of error raised by BJL, except enumerations C and E.
