The Atlanta Gleaner.

Case Law Updates

Int'l Bhd. of Police Officers Local 623, Inc. v. Brosnan

Core Termsbreach of contract · legal representation · summary judgment · police officer union · consideration · damages · reimbursement

Case Summary

Officer Devin Brosnan sued his police union, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, for breach of contract after it failed to provide legal representation during the high-profile investigation of the Rayshard Brooks shooting. Brosnan, who had relied on Union recruitment materials promising "24/7 legal representation," was forced to secure private counsel at a cost of $250,000.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed partial summary judgment in favor of Brosnan, holding that the Union's documents and verbal assurances created an enforceable contract that the Union breached.

The Court concluded that whether a $100,000 retainer paid by Brosnan's father constitutes a repayable debt remains a question of fact for a jury.

Opinion

DOYLE, Presiding Judge.

Devin Brosnan filed suit against the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 623, Inc., ("the Union") alleging that it breached an agreement to provide legal representation. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial granted partial summary judgment in favor of Brosnan. The Union now appeals, and we affirm for the reasons that follow.

"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."¹ We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.²

The relevant facts are as follows. Brosnan joined the Atlanta Police Department in 2018 and was provided recruitment materials by the Union stating, among other things, that members would receive "24/7 legal representation" in the event of a critical incident. Brosnan paid Union dues through the time of the incident.

On June 12, 2020, Brosnan was involved in the shooting of Rayshard Brooks. He immediately contacted the Union and requested legal counsel as promised. The Union did not provide an attorney before Brosnan was arrested and charged with felony murder. Brosnan subsequently retained private counsel at a cost of approximately $250,000.

Brosnan thereafter filed suit against the Union, alleging breach of contract. The Union moved for summary judgment, contending that its recruitment materials did not constitute an enforceable contract, and that even if they did, it did not breach any such contract. Brosnan filed a cross-motion, arguing that the materials, together with verbal representations made by Union officials, created an enforceable promise that the Union failed to honor.

The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Brosnan, finding that a contract was formed and that the Union breached it. The court declined to rule on damages as a matter of law, reserving for the jury the question of whether a $100,000 retainer paid by Brosnan's father constituted a loan to Brosnan and thus a component of his recoverable damages. The Union now appeals.

We agree with the trial court that the Union's written materials and verbal representations, taken together, created an enforceable contractual obligation to provide legal representation.³ Brosnan paid dues in reasonable reliance on the Union's promise of legal support, supplying the necessary consideration. See OCGA § 13-3-40.

The Union's failure to provide an attorney prior to Brosnan's arrest constituted a breach of that obligation. We therefore affirm the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed. Markle and Padgett, JJ., concur.

[ Comic Awaiting Scan ]