Top

LEGACY ACADEMY, INC. v. Mamilove LLC Franchisee Award Reversed (Court Ruling)

September 30, 2015

In 2013, a Gwinnett County jury awarded former Legacy Academy franchisees  $1,155,000 after finding the childcare franchisor had made misleading and deceptive earnings claims in the franchise sales process.  The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the verdict and voided the award, in part because the franchisees hadn’t read the disclosure documents before signing.  See the full court opinion below.

(UnhappyFranchisee.Com)  The Georgia Supreme Court reversal of the Legacy Academy ruling and award conveys two powerful lessons for prospective franchisees:

1) Read your Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) and Franchise Agreement

2)  Understand what you’re agreeing to

Here’s the story, in a nutshell, as I understand it (non-attorney version):

Two sisters, The Reymonds,  approached Frank Turner and Melissa Veal Turner about becoming Legacy Academy franchisees

  • The Turners made pre-sale earnings claims that weren’t disclosed in the disclosure documents (as required by the FTC)
  • The Turners pressured the Reymonds to sign the franchise agreement even though they had just provided them with the disclosure documents at the same lunch meeting (The FTC requires 14 days must pass between disclosure and signing.).  The Turners allegedly told the Reymonds they’d lose their location if they didn’t sign then and there.
  • The Reymonds signed the franchise agreement without reading the documents or having them reviewed.
  • 10 years later, the Reymonds sued Legacy for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and violations of the RICO Act.
  • A jury found in the franchisee’s favor and awarded them over $1M.
  • On appeal, the GA Supreme Court reversed the verdict and nullified the award since, by signing the franchise agreement, the Reymonds had attested that they had received no earnings claims (Item 19) and that the representations in the franchise agreement  were all they relied on (merger clause).

(I have asked Legacy Academy attorney M. Kathleen Hart to point out any factual misstatements in my layman’s summary)

Chief Justice Thomas ruled that the franchisees could not legitimately claim they were defrauded by an agreement they did not read. He cited something called Lewis, supra 189 Ga. at 601 which states, in part:

The law will not excuse [a plaintiff] for failing to read the instrument because of her confidence in the defendant, upon whom she had no legal right to rely, and who the allegations show employed no trick or artifice that caused her to fail to do her duty in reading before signing… The law will protect the innocent against fraud . . . but it demands of every one that he make use of his own facilities to avoid being defrauded.

Was Legacy Academy Cleared of Fraud Allegations?

Legacy Academy attorney M. Kathleen Hart wrote to us that “the Court found that Legacy did not commit fraud and overturned the damage award.”

I find that statement a bit misleading, at least when communicating it to a non-lawyer, as it implies the Turners were cleared of wrongdoing.  While the Turners may have been cleared of fraud in a legally actionable sense,  nowhere does it say that they did not provide undisclosed and deceptive earnings claims, that they did not knowingly violate the mandatory 14-day review period, or that they did not pressure the franchisees with the (probably empty) threat that they’d lose their prized location if they didn’t sign on the spot.

From an outside, non-legal perspective, both franchisees and franchisor were proven guilty.

The Reymonds are guilty, it seems, of failing to do an ounce of due diligence, of signing an agreement for a huge investment without reading it or having it reviewed by an attorney, and of expecting a court to fetch them back their money 10 years later.

The Turners and Legacy Academy are guilty, it seems, of short-sighted and questionable franchise business practices that have earned them years of franchise litigation and undoubtedly stunted the growth of the Legacy Academy franchise chain.

What do you think?  Share a comment below.

LEGACY ACADEMY, INC. v. Mamilove LLC Georgia Supreme Court Decision

View as a PDF:  LEGACY ACADEMY, INC. v. Mamilove LLC Georgia Supreme Court Decision

297 Ga. 15 FINAL COPY

S14G1891. LEGACY ACADEMY, INC. et al. v. MAMILOVE, LLC et al.

THOMPSON, Chief Justice.

This appeal arises out of an action brought by the owner of a franchise, Mamilove, LLC, and its officers, Michele and Lorraine Reymond (collectively “the Reymonds”), in which they sought rescission of a franchise agreement and damages for claims related to their negotiations for, and ultimate purchase of, a daycare franchise. The named defendants are the franchisor, Legacy Academy, Inc., and its officers, Frank and Melissa Turner (collectively “Legacy”).

A review of the evidence presented at trial demonstrates that in 2001, Michele and Lorraine Reymond, sisters, approached the Turners and expressed an interest in purchasing a Legacy Academy Center daycare franchise. Michele testified that in July 2001, Legacy gave her and her sister an earnings claim purporting to state the historical earnings of existing franchisees. This earnings claim reflected that in the first two years after purchasing a franchise, franchisee could expect to receive net income of $260,000 and $440,000, respectively. The Turners also discussed with the sisters an available property on Old Peachtree Parkway, suggesting it would be a good location for their franchise.

Subsequently, the Reymond sisters created Mamilove, LLC, an entity established for the purpose of holding title to the real property upon which they intended to build their Legacy Academy franchise and the building and personal property used in the operation of their franchise. In September 2001, Michele, who had a master’s degree in business administration and was working for a large corporation, and Lorraine, who was working for WebMD, again met with the Turners and were given an offering circular and a franchise agreement (the Agreement) for their signature. They signed the Agreement the same day without reading either it or the offering circular. Ten years later, they brought the action at issue in this appeal, alleging that Legacy fraudulently induced them to sign the Agreement by providing false information about the historical earnings of existing Legacy Academy franchisees.1

They sought to rescind the Agreement and to recover damages for claims based on allegations of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of both OCGA § 51-1-62 and the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”),3 OCGA § 16-14-1 et seq.

A jury trial ensued, and after the close of evidence, the trial court denied Legacy’s motion for directed verdict as to all of the Reymonds’ claims.4

The jury found in favor of the Reymonds, issuing a general verdict awarding them $750,000 in compensatory damages, $375,000 in additional RICO damages, and $30,000 in costs of litigation.

____________________

1 The Reymonds’ daycare center opened in November 2002. At trial, they claimed the center lost $212,300 in the first year of operation and had net earnings of $103,692 in 2004, but that by 2009, net earnings dropped to $28,299.

2 OCGA § 51-1-6 states that “[w]hen a law requires a person to perform an act for the benefit of another or to refrain from doing an act which may injure another, although no cause of action is given in express terms, the injured party may recover for the breach of such legal duty if he suffers damage thereby.” The Reymonds alleged Legacy failed to make certain required disclosures in violation of 16 CFR § 436 and that Legacy’s failure to comply with the duties imposed by this Federal Trade Commission regulation caused them damage.

3 The Reymonds predicated their RICO claim on allegations that Legacy committed acts of theft by conversion (OCGA § 16-8-4), theft by deception (OCGA § 16-8-3), theft by taking (OCGA § 16-8-2), and falsification, concealment, and fraudulent financial documentation (OCGA § 16-10-20).

4 Consistent with this ruling, the trial court also denied Legacy’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. See OCGA § 9-11-50 (b).

____________________

Legacy appealed, raising various challenges, including a challenge to the trial court’s ruling on its motion for directed verdict.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, Legacy Academy, Inc. v. Mamilove, LLC, 328 Ga. App. 775 (761 SE2d 880) (2014), and we granted a writ of certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the trial court’s denial of a directed verdict on the Reymonds’ claims for rescission, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Georgia RICO statute. Because we find Legacy was entitled to a directed verdict as to these claims, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals in part.

1.   A motion for directed verdict may be granted only where the evidence demands the particular verdict and fails to disclose any material issue for jury resolution. See OCGA § 9-11-50 (a). Legacy argues the trial court erred by denying its motion for directed verdict on the claim for rescission based on fraudulent inducement because this claim was precluded as a matter of law by the Reymonds’ failure to read the Agreement.

“In general, a party alleging fraudulent inducement to enter a contract has two options: (1) affirm the contract and sue for damages from the fraud or breach; or (2) promptly rescind the contract and sue in tort for fraud.” Ekeledo v. Amporful, 281 Ga. 817, 819 (1) (642 SE2d 20) (2007). Having elected to seek rescission and pursue a claim for fraud, the Reymonds were required to prove that Legacy through misrepresentation, act, or artifice intentionally induced them to sign the Agreement and that they justifiably relied on the misrepresentation, act, or artifice, being “reasonably diligent in the use of the facilities at [their] command.” Lewis v. Foy, 189 Ga. 596, 598 (6 SE2d 788)(1940). See Markowitz v. Wieland, 243 Ga. App. 151, 153 (532 SE2d 705) (2000). They attempted to meet their burden through the presentation of evidence showing inaccuracies in the earnings claim provided by Legacy prior to the Agreement’s execution and their reliance on these representations in deciding to sign the Agreement. It is well-settled law, however, that

a party who has the capacity and opportunity to read a written contract cannot afterwards set up fraud in the procurement of his signature to the instrument based on [extra-contractual] representations that differ from the terms of the contract. Statements that directly contradict the terms of the agreement or offer future promises simply cannot form the basis of a fraud claim for the purpose of cancelling or rescinding a contract. In fact, the only type of fraud that can relieve a party of his obligation to read a written contract and be bound by its terms is a fraud that prevents the party from reading the contract.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Novare Group, Inc. v. Sarif, 290 Ga. 186, 188-189 (718 SE2d 304) (2011). See also Craft v. Drake, 244 Ga. 406, 408 (260 SE2d 475) (1979); Lewis, supra, 189 Ga. at 598.

The Court of Appeals held that the Reymonds’ failure to read the Agreement was excused because the jury would have been authorized to find based on evidence that they gave the Agreement to the Reymonds on the same day it was signed and told them that they had to sign the documents that day or another franchisee would be allowed to take their desired location. While these allegations would have authorized a jury to conclude that Legacy rushed the Reymonds by threatening the loss of their desired franchise location, they are legally insufficient to support a finding that the Reymonds were prevented from reading the Agreement through fraud or misleading artifice. See Budget Charge Accounts, Inc. v. Peters, 213 Ga. 17, 18 (96 SE2d 887) (1957) (mere allegation that defendant was in a hurry insufficient to excuse plaintiffs from reading documents); Citizens Bank, Vienna v. Bowen, 169 Ga. App. 896, 897 (315 SE2d 437) (1984) (evidence that defendants covered part of document and were in a hurry to have documents signed insufficient to establish that plaintiff was prevented by fraud from reading documents). Indeed, the complaint, the Reymonds’ arguments, and the evidence at trial all demonstrate that the Reymonds were not prevented from reading the Agreement but that they blindly relied on Legacy’s representations regarding expected income as a result of their own desire to quickly begin construction of their center at a particular location.

In addition, the record demonstrates that had they chosen to read the Agreement, the Reymonds would have been aware that they were signing an agreement expressly stating that Legacy had made no representations and they were not given or relying on any representations by Legacy regarding potential volume, profit, income, or success of the franchise5 and that by signing the Agreement, they were acknowledging that neither Legacy nor any of its agents had made any representation as to: “(i) earnings capability of Legacy Academy Center; (ii) a specific level of potential sales, income, gross or net profit for the Franchisee; or (iii) a specific level of sales, income, gross or net profits of existing centers (whether franchised or company-owned) other than as specifically described in the Offering Circular.”6  Because the pre-contractual earnings claim upon which the Reymonds allege they relied expressly contradicts the disclaimer and acknowledgment provisions of the Agreement,

____________________

5 The Agreement included a disclaimer clause providing that “Franchisor expressly disclaims the making of, and Franchisee and each Owner acknowledge that it has not received from Franchisor or any party on behalf of Franchisor, any representation, warranty or guarantee, express or implied, as to the potential volume, profit, income or success of the business licensed under this Agreement.”

6 It is undisputed that the offering circular made no representations regarding potential sales, income, gross or net profits for either existing or potential franchisees. In fact, it affirmatively states both that it contains no representations as to potential sales, income or profits and that franchisor was making no representations as to potential sales, income or profits.

____________________

their reliance on such representations was unreasonable as a matter of law. See Novare Group, supra, 290 Ga. at 188-189 (“[s]tatements that directly contradict the terms of the agreement . . . simply cannot form the basis of a fraud claim for the purpose of cancelling or rescinding a contract”); Craft, supra, 244 Ga. at 408 (pre-contractual statement that contradicted language of contract cannot be basis for fraud absent evidence that plaintiff was prevented by fraud from reading the contract); Ledford v. Smith, 274 Ga. App. 714, 726 (618 SE2d 627) (2005) (“Fraud cannot be the basis of an action if it appears that the party alleging the fraud had equal and ample opportunity to prevent it and yet made it possible through the failure to exercise due diligence. [Cits.]”). As stated in Lewis, supra, 189 Ga. at 601:

The law will not excuse [a plaintiff] for failing to read the instrument because of her confidence in the defendant, upon whom she had no legal right to rely, and who the allegations show employed no trick or artifice that caused her to fail to do her duty in reading before signing. No one can truthfully claim to have been defrauded in a matter about which that one has full knowledge and opportunity to exercise his free choice. The law will protect the innocent against fraud . . . but it demands of every one that he make use of his own facilities to avoid being defrauded. No other rule could safely be adopted and enforced by the courts with reference to written instruments. It is essential to all business relationships that the validity and solemnity of written contracts, freely and voluntarily executed, be upheld.

Absent any evidence of fraud that prevented the Reymonds from reading the Agreement, the evidence demanded a verdict in favor of Legacy on the rescission claim.

2. Having determined that the Reymonds were entitled to the remedy of rescission, the Court of Appeals held that the merger clause contained in the rescinded Agreement did not bar the remaining claims for fraud, negligent representation, and RICO violations. Our ruling in Division 1 now mandates a different result.

There is no dispute that the Reymonds executed the Agreement and our holding in Division 1 affirming its validity means that they are bound by its provisions, including a comprehensive merger clause which, using standard contract language, states that “this agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the matters contained herein. This [a]greement terminates and supercedes any prior agreement between the parties concerning the same subject matter.” Under Georgia law, as “a matter of law, a valid merger clause executed by two or more parties in an arm’s length transaction precludes any subsequent claim of deceit based upon pre-contractual representations.” See First Data POS, Inc. v. Willis, 273 Ga. 792, 795 (546 SE2d 781) (2001). As we explained in First Data,

[w]here a conflict exists between oral and written representations, it has long been the law in Georgia that if the parties have reduced their agreement to writing, all oral representations made antecedent to execution of the written contract are merged into and extinguished by the contract and are not binding upon the parties.

Id. at 794-795 (citations omitted). Thus, where a written contract contains a comprehensive merger clause, “prior or contemporaneous representations that contradict the written contract cannot be used to vary the terms of a valid written agreement purporting to contain the entire agreement of the parties, nor would the violation of any such alleged oral agreement amount to actionable fraud.” Id. at 795, quoting Campbell v. C&S Nat. Bank, 202 Ga. App. 639, 640 (415SE2d 193) (1992). Compare Authentic Architectural Millworks, Inc. v. SCM Group USA, Inc., 262 Ga. App. 826 (2) (a) (586 SE2d 726) (2003) (merger clause does not bar fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims where alleged misrepresentations are contained within contract) and Raysoni v. Payless Auto Deals, LLC, 296 Ga. 156, 157-158 (766 SE2d 24) (2014) (partial merger clause was not comprehensive and did not bar reliance on written representations outside scope of merger clause). It follows that the Reymonds’ fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of RICO claims which depended entirely on allegations of pre-contractual representations are precluded as a matter of law by the Agreement’s merger clause.7

3. The Reymonds argue that even if Legacy was entitled to directed verdicts on their claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and RICO, the jury’s award of $750,000 in compensatory damages can be upheld as an award of damages on their OCGA § 51-1-6 claim.8   We cannot agree. The verdict form submitted to the jury, which was reviewed and agreed to by the parties, asked the jury to determine, in pertinent part: (1) whether as to the Reymonds’ claims against Legacy, it found in favor of the Reymonds or Legacy, and if in favor of the Reymonds, in what amount; (2) if it found in favor of the Reymonds and awarded damages and found Legacy liable under the RICO statute, whether the Reymonds were entitled to additional RICO damages; and (3) whether either party was to be awarded costs of litigation and if so, in what amount. The verdict thus clearly reflects the jury’s finding that Legacy violated the RICO statute because it awarded the Reymonds $375,000 in additional RICO damages. The verdict provides no insight, however, into the jury’s specific findings regarding the other claims presented for its determination. In fact, it is impossible to ascertain from the general verdict returned whether the jury based its award of damages solely on the RICO violation or on a combination of the RICO violation and one of the other asserted grounds, several of which we have determined should not have been submitted to the jury. See Division 1, supra. Accordingly, the jury’s verdict must be reversed in its entirety and the case remanded for a new trial. See Ga. Power Co. v. Busbin, 242 Ga. 612, 616 (250 SE2d 442) (1978) (verdict cannot stand where appellate court cannot determine whether verdict was entered on a proper basis).

____________________

7 Contrary to the Reymonds’ argument, our holding in City Dodge, Inc. v. Gardner, 232 Ga. 766, 769-770 (208 SE2d 794) (1974), does not require a different result. We stated in City Dodge that where there is evidence from which a jury could find that a rescinded contract is void because of antecedent fraud, the contract’s disclaimer clause would be ineffectual because “in legal contemplation, there is no contract between the parties.” Id. at 770. In comparison, the terms of the contract in this case, including the merger and disclaimer clauses, are enforceable against the Reymonds because there was no evidence from which a jury could have determined that they were entitled to rescind the Agreement.

8 Legacy did not seek review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals’ holding as to the OCGA § 51-1-6 claim so we express no opinion on that issue.

____________________

Judgment reversed in part and case remanded. Benham, Hunstein, Melton, Nahmias and Blackwell, JJ., and Judge Ural Glanville concur. Hines, P. J., not participating.

Decided April 20, 2015.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia – 328 Ga. App. 775.

C. David Joyner; Gregory, Doyle, Calhoun & Rogers, Charles L. Bachman, Jr., for appellants.

Ichter Thomas, Cary Ichter, W. Daniel Davis, for appellees.

Greenberg Traurig, Ernest L. Greer, Michael J. King, amici curiae.

 

ALSO READ:

FRANCHISE DISCUSSIONS by Company

LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Complaints

LEGACY ACADEMY Ichter Thomas Wins Suit for Legacy Academy Franchise Owners

ICHTER THOMAS Another Win Against Legacy Academy Franchise

LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Marketing Representations

LEGACY ACADEMY Are Frank & Melissa Turner “Disreputable”?

LEGACY ACADEMY Invited to Respond to Franchise Complaints

 

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LEGACY ACADEMY FRANCHISE PROGRAM AND ITS FRANCHISEE DISPUTES?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?  SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

TAGS:  Legacy Academy,  Legacy Academy franchise, Legacy Academy litigation, Legacy Academy litigation, LEGACY ACADEMY, INC. v. Mamilove LLC, franchise earnings claims, franchise fraud, Andersen, Tate & Carr PC, Frank Turner, Melissa Turner, Melissa Reymond, Lorraine Reymond, Cary Ichter, M. Kathleen Hart, cease and desist, takedown demand letter

UNHAPPYFRANCHISEE.COM Response to Legacy Academy 2nd Cease and Desist Letter

September 29, 2015

UnhappyFranchisee.Com responds to a nasty legal demand by Legacy Academy attorney M. Kathleen Hart of Andersen, Tate & Carr PC to remove a Legacy Academy logo and a supposed replacement logo from a 2 1/2 year old post.  We aren’t sure how to comply, since no logo has appeared on that page for 21 months. #bullying #harrassment

(UnhappyFranchisee.Com) On September 24, 2015 attorney M. Kathleen Hart sent us a our 2nd cease and desist letter demanding that we remove the Legacy Academy logo from a 2013 blog post.

She claims that she had made the same demand 21 months ago and we refused to comply.

Legacy Academy(See LEGACY ACADEMY 2nd Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com)

Then she went off on how we had added disclaimer copy to the logo, but that wasn’t enough to qualify for “nominative fair use” because it didn’t meet the “minimum necessary test.”

M. Kathleen’s letter was delightfully condescending and snarky, in that arrogant attorney style we’ve come to enjoy so well:

Since you claim to be just a “simple blogger,” I’ll try to be simple…

…I don’t want to repeat myself, so let’s just keep this simple…

… you presumably know how to use email…

I was just about to start Googling “nominative fair use” and “minimum necessary test” when it occurred to me to check the web page.

Lo and behold, there isn’t a single Legacy Academy logo (or replacement logo) on that page, and there hasn’t been since I removed it in January, 2014.

Now I must inform the fiery and irascible Ms. M. that I cannot remove what no longer exists.

Unhappy Franchisee.

.

.

.

.

M . Kathleen Hart, Esq.

Attorney for Legacy Academy, Inc.

Andersen, Tate & Carr , P . C .

1960 Satellite Boulevard , Suite  4000

Duluth, Georgia 30097

September 29, 2015

Dear M.:

Thank you for your letter of September 24, 2015.

.

However, your representation that we have continued to use the logo (or replaced it with one with a disclaimer) on the page that you first objected to in your letter of January 28, 2014 is incorrect.

.

You state “On January 24, 2014, we issued a written demand on behalf Legacy [sic] that you cease and desist violating Legacy’s protected rights in the Mark by removing the logo displayed on the webpage http://www.unhappyfranchisee.com/index.php?s=legacy.   Despite this demand, you have chosen to continue using and displaying the Mark on your webpage…”

.

Your original letter (attached) contained a scan of a printed post published December 18, 2013 titled “ICHTER THOMAS Another Win Against Legacy Academy Franchise.” The logo was removed from that post shortly after we received your January 24, 2014 letter and was not replaced. There has not been a Legacy Academy logo on that page for the 21 months since you last communicated with us.

.

If you would like us to be able to accurately respond to objections in the future, please indicate the specific text or graphics you object to by providing a screen capture or printed/scanned page, as you did with your original letter.

.

Also, when providing web addresses to designate specific online content you find objectionable, it would be advisable for you to refer to static web pages rather than dynamic web pages that contain changing indexes of category contents (as you did in both your letters when you referenced the dynamic web page http://www.unhappyfranchisee.com/index.php?s=legacy.) Referring to a dynamic category index of blog posts will inevitably cause confusion, as the content of that web page changes every time a post in that category is added, updated or recategorized.

.

Learning the difference between the two types of web pages should help you communicate more effectively in the future not only with us, but with other blogging miscreants, infringers and roustabouts.

.

Please let me know if there’s anything else I can do to address your concerns and put your clients’ minds at ease. But please don’t wait 21 months to respond this time! My memory span is not what it used to be!

.

Cheers… ADMIN (UnhappyFranchisee.Com)

.

CC via email Mr. Frank Turner, Mrs. Melissa Veal Turner, Legacy Academy

Attachment: Legacy Academy 1st cease and desist letter

 

Read:

LEGACY ACADEMY 2nd Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com

ALSO READ:

FRANCHISE DISCUSSIONS by Company

LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Complaints

LEGACY ACADEMY Ichter Thomas Wins Suit for Legacy Academy Franchise Owners

ICHTER THOMAS Another Win Against Legacy Academy Franchise

LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Marketing Representations

We have also had our own issues with Legacy Academy and its attorneys:

LEGACY ACADEMY Issues Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com

LEGACY ACADEMY Are Frank & Melissa Turner “Disreputable”?

LEGACY ACADEMY UnhappyFranchisee.Com Complies With Legal Request/Threat

LEGACY ACADEMY Invited to Respond to Franchise Complaints

 

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LEGACY ACADEMY, FRANK TURNER, MELISSA TURNER OR M. KATHLEEN HART?

ARE THEY JUSTIFIED IN HARASSING US?  SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

TAGS: Cease and Desist letter, takedown demand, nominative fair use,  Legacy Academy,  Legacy Academy franchise, Early Learning franchise opportunity, Legacy Academy franchise complaints, Andersen, Tate & Carr PC, Frank Turner, Melissa Turner, M. Kathleen Hart, cease and desist, takedown demand letter

LEGACY ACADEMY 2nd Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com

September 29, 2015

Georgia-based childcare franchisor Legacy Academy and attorney M. Kathleen Hart of Andersen, Tate & Carr PC seem obsessed with bullying our franchise blog into removing a logo from a 2 1/2 year old post.  Will this latest Cease & Desist Takedown Demand have the desired effect?  Or are they setting themselves up for ridicule and derision?

(UnhappyFranchisee.Com) In January, 2014,  attorney M. Kathleen Hart  wrote us a letter that said our use of the Legacy Academy “derivative mark” and “adulterated derivative mark” on a post published 13 months earlier could create a “likelihood of confusion” between Legacy Academy’s brick and mortar franchised daycare centers and our UnhappyFranchisee.com franchise discussion website. (See the 1st Cease & Desist Letter: Legacy Academy Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com  January 24, 2014)

Citizens of the beautiful Southern state of Georgia, M. Kathleen Hart, Legacy CEO Frank Turner and VP Melissa Veal Turner were evidently concerned that there may be someone, somewhere, (a patient under heavy sedation? Or suffering from Traumatic Brain Injury?) who is unable to distinguish between a website and a large building filled with children.

It didn’t make sense to us but…  Maybe it’s a Southern thing, we thought.

Legacy AcademySo we took the logo (temporarily) off the web page they objected to (ICHTER THOMAS Another Win Against Legacy Academy Franchise).

We created a proposed alternative graphic which included text that unmistakably disclaimed any relationship between UnhappyFranchisee.Com and Legacy Academy.

(See our response to the 1st Cease & Desist Letter: LEGACY ACADEMY UnhappyFranchisee.Com Complies With Legal Request/Threat)

With these changes, we were certain that even a recently arrived extraterrestrial who had not been paying attention in his Earth Object Differentiation 101 class could not mistakenly believe that Legacy Academy had created a website with which to criticize itself.

We submitted our proposed solution to M. Kathleen Hart for her immediate review and feedback.

No answer.

We sent M. another email asking if our proposed solution was acceptable.

Her assistant confirmed that she received it, but again, no response.

21 months later, M. Kathleen Hart sent us the 2nd Legacy Academy cease and desist letter (below).

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that neither M. Kathleen nor her client ever bothered to check the original post to see that the logo they objected to was removed 21 months ago and never replaced.

A link to our response is posted below.

M. Kathleen Hart’s email as a PDF:  LEGACY ACADEMY 2nd Cease & Desist

 

Andersen Tate Carr law firm

M . Kathleen Hart

Direct Phone : 67 8 -5 18-6 8 5 1

Email: khart@atclawfirm.c o m  

Direc t Fax : 77 0 – 2 3 6 – 9 7 8 5

 

September 24, 2015

VIA   EMAIL: unhappyfranchisee[at]gmail. com

UnhappyFranchisee.com

RE: UnhappyFranchisee.com’s Unlawful Use of Legacy Academy, Inc.’s Registered Service Mark

To Whom it May Concern:

This law firm represents Legacy Academy, Inc. (“Legacy”), the owner of a federal registration for the “Legacy Academy For Children” service mark, USPTO Registration Number 2686283 (the “Mark”), which registration has become incontestable. On January 24, 2014, we issued a written demand on behalf Legacy that you cease and desist violating Legacy’s protected rights in the Mark by removing the logo displayed on the webpage http://www.unhappyfranchisee.com/index.php?s=legacy.   Despite this demand, you have chosen to continue using and displaying the Mark on your webpage (and, as a result, to be displayed as a result in Google’s “Images” search feature) and have merely added a disclaimer of sponsorship or affiliation.  Legacy now hereby renews its demand that you immediately cease and desist all use of the Mark, as such use is not nominative fair use.

.

Since you claim to be just a “simple blogger,” I’ll try to be simple in outlining why your continued use of Legacy’s Mark is not legitimate.  While the disclaimer might address the factor of the nominative fair use test relating to an indication of joint sponsorship or endorsement, it does not address the factor that weighs whether the use of the mark was necessary (also known as the “minimum necessary” test). Courts have consistently found that use of a design mark or logo is not nominative fair use, because it is not necessary to identify the trademark owner’s goods or services. Basically, you can use the name “Legacy Academy For Children”, but you cannot use the logo or the graphic, because the logo is not necessary to your goal of identifying Legacy or its services. It might be helpful in driving traffic to your website and to your directory of franchisee attorneys, but it isn’t necessary.

.

Also, with respect to the content of your articles regarding my client, I’ve enclosed a copy of the Georgia Supreme Court’s recent decision in Legacy Academy, Inc. et. al. v. Mamilove, LLC et al., in which the Court reversed the Georgia Court of Appeals ruling that you recount on your website. The Supreme Court unanimously determined that Legacy was entitled to a directed verdict on the plaintiff’s claims for rescission, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Georgia RICO statute. To translate, the Court found that Legacy did not commit fraud and overturned the damage award. Given that you have invited all companies discussed on your website to “provide corrections, clarifications or rebuttals ,” I wanted to make sure that you have a copy of the decision so that you can update your story on Legacy accordingly (removing the headline that Legacy is “guilty of fraud” would be a good start), stop misleading those who visit your attorney advertising website and avoid any further pesky letters from me.

.

I’ve already give you all the nasty-sounding warnings in my January 24, 2014 letter, and I don’t want to repeat myself, so let’s just keep this simple. Stop using Legacy’s logo and update your story on Legacy so that it is accurate and not misleading , and you will not have to hear from me again or spend time trying to write responses to my letters on your blog (responses that you never bothered to actually send to me directly, even though you presumably know how to use email). At least not unless you do something else that violates the rights of one of my clients.

.

Of course, nothing in this letter is a waiver of any rights or remedies of my client, and Legacy reserves all rights regarding the same. Please direct your response to this letter to me.

.

Sincerely,

M. Kathleen Hart, Esq.

for Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C.

Enclosure

cc: Mr. Frank Turner (via email) Mrs. Melissa Turner (via email)

Mr. Robert Thomas, Esq., Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C.

Read:

UNHAPPYFRANCHISEE.COM Response to Legacy Academy 2nd Cease and Desist Letter

 

ALSO READ:

FRANCHISE DISCUSSIONS by Company

LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Complaints

LEGACY ACADEMY Ichter Thomas Wins Suit for Legacy Academy Franchise Owners

ICHTER THOMAS Another Win Against Legacy Academy Franchise

LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Marketing Representations

We have also had our own issues with Legacy Academy and its attorneys:

LEGACY ACADEMY Issues Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com

LEGACY ACADEMY Are Frank & Melissa Turner “Disreputable”?

LEGACY ACADEMY UnhappyFranchisee.Com Complies With Legal Request/Threat

LEGACY ACADEMY Invited to Respond to Franchise Complaints

 

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LEGACY ACADEMY, FRANK TURNER, MELISSA TURNER OR M. KATHLEEN HART?

ARE THEY JUSTIFIED IN HARASSING US?  SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

TAGS: Cease and Desist letter, takedown demand, nominative fair use,  Legacy Academy,  Legacy Academy franchise, Early Learning franchise opportunity, Legacy Academy franchise complaints, Andersen, Tate and Carr PC, Frank Turner, Melissa Turner, M. Kathleen Hart, cease and desist, takedown demand letter

LEGACY ACADEMY Committed Franchise Fraud, Court Rules

August 19, 2014

Legacy Academy and franchisors Frank Turner and Melissa Turner committed fraud and criminal theft by deception against its franchisee, according to Superior Court of Gwinnett County. The Georgia Court of Appeals has affirmed the precedent-setting decision. Orininlly published August 19, 2014, updated 10/1/15.  See link to important update below.

(UnhappyFranchisee.Com)  Legacy Academy franchisee Mamilove, LLC, et al. and law firm Ichter Thomas have scored a big victory, scoring both a significant financial award and setting new Georgia case law in the process.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court of Gwinnett County finding Legacy Academy, Inc. (“Legacy”) and its owners, Franklin Lee Turner and Melissa Veal Turner (the “Turners”), committed fraud and criminal theft by deception with respect to a former Legacy franchisee.

On July 16, 2014, in Legacy Academy, Inc., et al., v. Mamilove, LLC, et al. (Case No. A14A0718), the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court of Gwinnett County finding Legacy Academy, Inc. (“Legacy”) and its owners, Franklin Lee Turner and Melissa Veal Turner (the “Turners”), committed fraud and criminal theft by deception with respect to a former Legacy franchisee.

Jury Finds Legacy Academy Guilty of Fraud;  Franchisees Awarded $1.1M

Legacy Academy LogoFollowing a week-long trial last April, a jury concluded Legacy and the Turners fraudulently induced Michele and Lorraine Reymond (the “Reymonds”) to enter into a franchise relationship with Legacy by falsely representing a pro forma financial statement was based on the historic performance of then-existing franchisees.

Legacy and the Turners appealed the trial court’s judgment on the jury’s verdict for a host of reasons, including purported errors when the trial court denied Legacy and Turners’ motions for summary judgment, directed verdict and a new trial.

In a full-Court decision, however, the Court of Appeals rejected all these arguments.

As a result, the Reymonds’ franchise agreement with Legacy has been rescinded and the Legacy and the Turners are jointly and severally obligated to pay the Reymonds monetary damages in the principal amount of $1,155,000.

UPDATE!!!  The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the decision in Michelle & Lorrane Reymond’s (Mamilove, Inc.) lawsuit and ruled in Legacy Academy’s favor.  That nullified the damages award.  Read the Judge’s decision and what the franchisee’s did wrong here: LEGACY ACADEMY, INC. v. Mamilove LLC Franchisee Award Reversed (Court Ruling)

Legacy Academy has had contentious and turbulent relationships with its franchisees, some of which have been documented on UnhappyFranchisee.Com:

LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Complaints

LEGACY ACADEMY Ichter Thomas Wins Suit for Legacy Academy Franchise Owners

ICHTER THOMAS Another Win Against Legacy Academy Franchise

LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Marketing Representations

We have also had our own issues with Legacy Academy and its attorneys:

LEGACY ACADEMY Issues Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com

LEGACY ACADEMY Are Frank & Melissa Turner “Disreputable”?

LEGACY ACADEMY UnhappyFranchisee.Com Complies With Legal Request/Threat

LEGACY ACADEMY Invited to Respond to Franchise Complaints

Ichter Thomas Makes Franchise Law in Georgia

Now, for the first time, the Georgia Court of Appeals has held that franchisees can state a claim against franchisors that breach their disclosure obligations under the Franchise Rule pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6.  Furthermore, the appeal was decided by a seven-judge Court, with a four-judge majority concurring in the judgment.  As a result, the Court’s decision is binding precedent.  See Ga. Ct. App. R. 33(a).

Read more at ICHTER THOMAS: Franchisees Can Now Use FTC Franchise Rule to Sue in Georgia.

According to a release by Ichter Thomas:

Of particular note, however, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled, for the first time, that franchisees can assert claims for relief under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6 for violations of duties arising under the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) franchise rule, 16 C.F.R. Parts 436 and 437 (the “Franchise Rule”).  The FTC promulgated the Franchise Rule pursuant to its authority under the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58, for the stated purpose of “prevent[ing] deceptive and unfair practices in the sale of franchises and business opportunities….”  FTC, Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising and Business Opportunities, 72 Fed. Reg. 15,445 (Mar. 30, 2007).  As a result, the Franchise Rule imposes substantial, pre-sale disclosure requirements on franchisors concerning a variety of issues, including their business experience; litigation history; fees; supply chain restrictions; assistance and support to franchisees; renewal, termination, transfer and dispute resolution procedures; and financial performance representations.

.

Attorney Cary Ichter[Left, attorney Cary Ichter of Ichter Thomas]

.

Franchisees, however, cannot sue to enforce the Franchise Rule.  See Holloway v. Bristol-Myers Corp., 485 F.2d 986, 987 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (“[P]rivate actions to vindicate rights asserted under the Federal Trade Commission Act may not be maintained”).  In addition, several courts have concluded that, even if a franchisor violated the Franchise Rule, the franchisee is still stuck with the franchise agreement.  See, e.g., Vino 100, LLC v. Smoke on the Water, LLC, 864 F. Supp. 2d 269, 281 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (“[A] franchisee may not use a franchisor’s alleged noncompliance with Rule 436 to invalidate a franchise contract”); Holiday Hospitality Franchising v. 174 W. Street Corp., 2006 WL 2466819, at *6 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 22, 2006) (“[T]he Defendants have not cited—and the Court cannot find—any case in which a court has voided an otherwise valid and enforceable franchise agreement because of regulatory violations”).

.

Furthermore, while the FTC can enforce violations of the Franchise Rule, it often does not.  See GAO-01-776, FTC’s Enforcement of the Franchise Rule 3 (July 2001) (“FTC staff told us that limited resources and other law enforcement priorities prevent[] FTC from pursuing every meritorious complaint and investigation involving franchises and business opportunities”).  All of this is a particular problem for franchisees in states that, like Georgia, do not have any statutes, i.e., disclosure, registration or relationship laws, of general application.  Cf. Georgia Motor Vehicle Franchise Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-620 et seq.

.

O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6, however, provides that “[w]hen the law requires a person to perform an act for the benefit of another or to refrain from doing an act which may injure another, although no cause of action is given in express terms, the injured party may recover for the breach of such legal duty if he suffers damage thereby.”  Courts applying Georgia law have previously held this statute allows private litigants to sue for a breach of legal duties arising under federal statutes (and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto) that themselves do not confer the right to sue.  See, e.g.,  Pulte Home Corp. v. Simerly, 322 Ga. App. 699, 746 S.E.2d 173, 179-80 (2013) (Clean Water Act); Cardin v. Telfair Acres of Lowndes County, 195 Ga. App. 449, 450, 393 S.E.2d 731 (1990) (OSHA).

.

Now, for the first time, the Georgia Court of Appeals has held that franchisees can state a claim against franchisors that breach their disclosure obligations under the Franchise Rule pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6.  Furthermore, the appeal was decided by a seven-judge Court, with a four-judge majority concurring in the judgment.  As a result, the Court’s decision is binding precedent.  See Ga. Ct. App. R. 33(a).

For more information on Georgia-based Ichter Thomas, see the profiles for attorneys Cary Ichter and Dan Davis in our Franchise Attorneys Directory.

ALSO READ:

FRANCHISE DISCUSSIONS by Company

 

WHAT DO YOU THINK? SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

TAGS: franchise, franchise opportunity, franchise complaints, franchise Lawsuits, franchise law, Georgia franchise law, Georgia franchise attorneys, attorney Cary Ichter, Ichter Thomas, Legacy Academy, Frank Turner, Melissa Turner, unhappy franchisee

ICHTER THOMAS: Franchisees Can Now Use FTC Franchise Rule to Sue in Georgia

August 19, 2014

A Georgia court has ruled that franchisees can sue franchisors who breached the disclosure obligations required of them by the FTC’s Franchise Rule.

(UnhappyFranchisee.Com) The precedent-setting ruling by the Georgia Court of Appeals came down July 16, 2014, in Legacy Academy, Inc., et al., v. Mamilove, LLC, et al.  The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court of Gwinnett County finding Legacy Academy, Inc. (“Legacy”) and its owners, Franklin Lee Turner and Melissa Veal Turner (the “Turners”), committed fraud and criminal theft by deception with respect to a former Legacy franchisee.

Attorney Cary IchterWhy is this a big deal?  According to Ichter Thomas principal Cary Ichter,  franchisees cannot sue to enforce the FTC Franchise Rule.  Several courts have concluded that, even if a franchisor violated the Franchise Rule, the franchisee is still stuck with the franchise agreement.  However, the ruling means that in Georgia courts, breaches of the FTC Franchise Rule are actionable under the Georgia Civil Code O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6 which addresses “Recovery of damages upon breach of legal duty.”

[Pictured, left, Attorney Cary Ichter]

So, while franchisees cannot sue directly for breaches of the FTC Franchise Rule per se, in Georgia they can sue because violation of the Franchise Rule contitutes a breach of legal duty.

It’s also a big deal because the appeal ruling was decided by a seven-judge Court, with a four-judge majority concurring in the judgment.  As a result, the Court’s decision is binding precedent.

It’s an especially significant victory for Ichter Thomas on behalf of wronged franchise owners.

And it must be a sweet personal victory for attorney Cary Ichter, who has outspokenly asserted that franchisees should be able to sue for violations of the FTC Franchise Rule

(See Ichter’s article:  Attorney Cary Ichter: There is No Federal Franchise Regulation)

Congratulations Mamilove, LLC, et al., Cary Ichter and the team at Ichter Thomas, LLC.

Keep up the good work on behalf of unhappy franchisees and fraud victims!

ALSO READ:

FRANCHISE DISCUSSIONS by Company

 

WHAT DO YOU THINK? SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

TAGS: franchise, franchise opportunity, franchise complaints, franchise Lawsuits, franchise law, Georgia franchise law, Georgia franchise attorneys, attorney Cary Ichter, Ichter Thomas, Legacy Academy, Frank Turner, Melissa Turner, unhappy franchisee

LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Marketing Representations

January 27, 2014

Legacy Academy has had a number of former franchisees accuse (and successfully sue) the company for allegedly making misleading, deceptive and/or unlawful financial representations during the franchise sales process.

UnhappyFranchisee.Com has volunteered to share concerns about certain representations being made on the Legacy Academy franchise sales webpage.

We offer our concerns in the hope that future Legacy Academy franchisees cannot claim that they were enticed by promises of success and abundant student enrollment from the start.

Here’s our letter to Legacy Academy franchisors Melissa & Frank Turner, sent to them via their attorney Kathleen Hart:

Frank & Melissa Turner

Legacy Academy, Inc.

4536A Nelson Brogdon Blvd.

Sugar Hill, GA 30518

January 27, 2014

Dear Frank & Melissa:

I am the person who contacted you last August asking for comment, clarification, rebuttal, etc. etc. regarding the news (posted on UnhappyFranchisee.Com) that Legacy Academy has now lost a bunch of lawsuits and over $1M in judgements to unhappy franchisees.  The most serious allegations, I believe, involved you making prohibited earnings claims and/or promises of performance to prospective franchisees.

I didn’t get a response for 5 months, then received your attorney Kathleen Hart’s letter on January 24th, 2014 objecting to our use of your logo in proximity to our URL, and warning use not to make libelous comments.  I think we’ve complied with her requests and put that behind us.  No hard feelings on our end.  She seems very nice.  In the future, feel free to just shoot us an email with any requests – I imagine threatening letters from attorneys of Ms. Hart’s caliber get expensive!

I know that no one truly wins these franchise lawsuits.  Even though your franchisees appear to have “won,” I’m sure they would rather not have gone through the ordeal in the first place.  And from your standpoint, you not only have to pay (I imagine) significant attorney fees, judgements, and other legal bills, you have to try to sell franchises with a bunch of litigation disclosed in your FDD and negative stories about you on the Internet.

I’m sure you’d rather avoid going through that aggravation ever again!  From our standpoint, we’d rather move on to other topics and never write about Legacy Academy franchise lawsuits in the future.

In the spirit of helping you reduce the likelihood of Legacy Academy getting sued (and losing) future lawsuits based on the marketing representations posted on your website, please accept the suggestions below in the constructive spirit in which they’re intended.

The Legacy Academy website states:  “Legacy Academy offers investors an exciting opportunity to earn a profitable return, while helping families and children with our very successful Daycare Franchises.”

With all due respect, do you really think it wise to promise a “profitable return” to investors?  I was taught it was always bad for franchisors to even mention the word “profit” because they have no control over franchisee profitability, what expenses they run through the business, etc.  Also, do you think it’s prudent to refer to your franchises as “very successful””?  I don’t know what your failure rate is, exactly, but this seems like a representation that could come back to bite you.  At least several, it seems, have not been successful.

The Legacy Academy website states: “Legacy Academy’s, success is tied to the success of each new childcare franchisee…”

The old saw that franchisors only make money when their franchisees make money is clearly in dispute.  I think I recall allegations of making money on real estate sold to Legacy Academy franchisees, construction, etc. (I could be wrong).  Plus royalties are collected on gross sales, not profits, right?  So it’s conceivable you could make money even if a franchisee is unsuccessful, correct?  Someone could make the claim that this was an inaccurate and misleading statement.

The Legacy Academy website states:  “Franchise operation is not for everyone but it is one of the most secure forms of business operation available…”

Do you have a source that validates your claim that franchises are one of the most secure forms of business operation?  Several studies and a report by the SBA suggest that franchises are, in fact, riskier than independent business startups.  Again, how many Legacy Academy schools have opened and closed?  Someone could challenge your assertion that the Legacy franchise is one of the most secure forms of business, could they not?

The Legacy Academy franchisee video may violate Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations

Now I’m not an attorney and I’m not saying you are violating FTC regulations, but if I were you I’d have your attorneys take a good hard look at the content of the Cindy Agnew franchisee testimonial that you’ve put on YouTube and your website.

It’s my understanding that franchisees are free to share their enrollment or sales numbers with prospective franchisees directly, but testimonials posted in franchise marketing materials or on the franchisors website are just the same as if the franchisor stated them directly.

It’s also my understanding that franchisors are prohibited from providing sales or performance representations unless they disclosing them in Item 19 of the FDD, unless they provide the factual basis for the representations, and unless they include disclaimers such as the fact that prospective franchisees might not achieve the same results.

In the video, the Greenville, SC franchisee state that, despite being in a recession, “Our first summer we had 22 kids… we filled up to just over 180 children… We started with just 22 kids and we’d eventually have a waiting list that is about 40 deep…”

Cindy Agnew states that 250 people attended her center’s graduation ceremony, and that she already has 9 kids signed up for her second facility months ahead of opening.  Prospective franchisees may feel that Cindy’s is the typical result that they can expect.

As I haven’t reviewed your Franchise Disclosure Document (I would be glad to if you want to share it with me), but I am guessing that Ms. Agnew’s sales representations are NOT included in Item 19 Financial Performance Representations section of the FDD.  Maybe they don’t have to be, maybe “enrollment numbers” don’t count as “sales,” but I would think you are in ultra-cautious mode at this point, and would not want to be accused of providing Financial Performance Representations without proper disclosure.

Let me know what you think of these suggestions, and also anything you would like the world to know about your philosophy, practices, and and expansion plans for the Legacy Academy franchise!

All the best,

 

ADMIN

UnhappyFranchisee.Com

Read more about the Legacy Academy franchise:

LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Complaints

LEGACY ACADEMY Ichter Thomas Wins Suit for Legacy Academy Franchise Owners

ICHTER THOMAS Another Win Against Legacy Academy Franchise

LEGACY ACADEMY Are Frank & Melissa Turner “Disreputable”?

LEGACY ACADEMY UnhappyFranchisee.Com Complies With Legal Request/Threat

LEGACY ACADEMY Issues Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com

LEGACY ACADEMY Invited to Respond to Franchise Complaints

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH LEGACY ACADEMY CHILD CARE OR THE LEGACY ACADEMY FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY? PLEASE SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

TAGS: Legacy Academy, Legacy Academy franchise, Legacy Academy child care, Legacy Academy lawsuit, Legacy Academy franchise complaints, Legacy Academy franchise lawsuits, M. Kathleen Hart, Attorney Kathleen Hart, Anderson Tate and Carr, Frank Turner, Melissa Turner, Unhappy Franchisee, Cindy Agnew

LEGACY ACADEMY Are Frank & Melissa Turner “Disreputable”?

January 27, 2014

Legacy Academy attorney M. Kathleen Hart of Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C. sent UnhappyFranchisee.Com a 2-page letter objecting to our use of the Legacy Academy logo and warning us that some of our articles were “perilously close” to being libelous.

Among other things, Ms. Hart stated that we had suggested that Legacy Owners Frank Turner & Melissa Turner are “disreputable.”

We do not know Frank or Melissa Turner, and never made a statement to that effect.

We really have not yet formed an opinion as to how “reputable” the Turners are, which is why we have asked them for their side of things (See LEGACY ACADEMY Invited to Respond to Franchise Complaints).

In this, our second response letter to Ms. Hart, we ask for clarification regarding her warning, and also suggest that Frank & Melissa accept our offer to clarify, correct or rebut our discussion of their company.

We will print whatever they would like known about them pro bono, with no hourly rates or administrative charges whatsoever.

See Ms. Hart’s cease & desist letter:  LEGACY ACADEMY UnhappyFranchisee.Com Complies With Legal Request/Threat

See UnhappyFranchisee.Com’s response regarding our use of the Legacy Academy logo:  LEGACY ACADEMY Issues Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com

 

M. Kathleen Hart, Esq.

Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C.

One Sugarloaf Centre

1960 Satellite Boulevard, Suite 4000

Duluth, Georgia, 30097

 

January 27, 2014

Dear Ms. Hart:

I would like to take this opportunity to address the warning that you issued to UnhappyFranchisee.Com in your letter of January 24, 2014 (LEGACY ACADEMY Issues Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com), specifically your statement that our articles “come perilously close to libel” by suggesting that “Legacy and its owners are ‘disreputable’.”

As it is not our intention to be libelous, we would like to ask you for clarifications in terms of what specific statements you consider “perilously close to libel.”

As we did in our first response (LEGACY ACADEMY UnhappyFranchisee.Com Complies With Legal Request/Threat), we beg your patience as to our limited, layman’s understanding of the law.

Regarding the concern that we have suggested that Legacy Academy owners Frank & Melissa Turner are “disreputable,” we can only find three (3) prior direct references to the Turners, two of which seem to be statements of verifiable fact:

“…Importantly, the jury specifically concluded that Legacy and its owners and officers—Frank and Melissa Turner—had engaged in at least two (2) acts of theft by deception, which is a criminal offense.”   (LEGACY ACADEMY Ichter Thomas Wins Suit for Legacy Academy Franchise Owners)

“After hearing a case presented by attorney Cary Ichter,  the jury concluded that Legacy and its owners and officers—Frank and Melissa Turner—had engaged in at least two acts of theft by deception, which is a criminal offense.”  (LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Complaints)

Upon posting these statements, we immediately contacted Legacy Academy and requested clarification, corrections or rebuttal, but got no response.  If a jury did NOT conclude that the Turners had engaged in at least two acts of theft by deception, and/or those are not criminal offenses, please let us know so we can issue a correction.

The third reference, posted under the subhead, “Has Legacy Academy Ceased Its Deceptive Franchise Practices?” on LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Complaints, also does not appear to be “close to libel”:

One would think that perhaps after 11 legal disputes involving deceptive sales practices, Legacy Academy and it owners Frank and Melissa Turner may have learned their lessons, cleaned up their acts, seen the light, and raised themselves up onto the righteous path of franchise sales compliance, stellar franchisee support, and positive franchisee-franchisor relations.

As we understand it, opinions are not libelous as long as they are clearly stated as opinions.  It is our opinion that most franchisors who have had the number of franchisee lawsuits and disputes as your client has had would be VERY careful to refrain from any franchise marketing representation that comes “perilously close” to appearing to be misleading or violations of the FTC Franchise Rule.

It is our opinion that some of the representations on the Legacy Academy are a bit questionable (We will be happy to share our opinion on this subject).

It is our opinion that your clients’ reputations would be better served if they engaged in open and honest dialogue concerning these valid issues, rather than hiding behind their law firm and seeking a baseless  legalistic, adversarial approach.

As their track record for resolving disputes through the legal system seems to be less than stellar (in our opinion), perhaps your client might try providing a rebuttal to the articles they object to.

In our opinion, actually engaging in an exchange of ideas and opinions, as protected by the 1st Amendment, would not only be a great way for your client to enhance their reputation,  they could do so without incurring attorney’s fees.  That would enable them to deploy more financial resources toward supporting their franchisees,  and less toward supporting their law firm.

Again, if you could please be specific about which statements you consider “perilously close to libel,” we will address those concerns as quickly as we can.

All the best,

ADMIN

UnhappyFranchisee.Com

Read more about the Legacy Academy franchise:

LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Complaints

LEGACY ACADEMY Ichter Thomas Wins Suit for Legacy Academy Franchise Owners

ICHTER THOMAS Another Win Against Legacy Academy Franchise

 

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH LEGACY ACADEMY CHILD CARE OR THE LEGACY ACADEMY FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY? PLEASE SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

TAGS: Legacy Academy, Legacy Academy franchise, Legacy Academy child care, Legacy Academy lawsuit, Legacy Academy franchise complaints, Legacy Academy franchise lawsuits, M. Kathleen Hart, Attorney Kathleen Hart, Anderson Tate & Carr, Frank Turner, Melissa Turner, Unhappy Franchisee, libel, defamation, cease and desist

LEGACY ACADEMY UnhappyFranchisee.Com Complies With Legal Request/Threat

January 25, 2014

Legacy Academy, through their law firm of Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C., sent us a 2-page cease & desist letter yesterday requesting that we not use the Legacy Academy logo in such a way that (in their opinion) implies that the embattled franchisor endorses, sponsors or is affiliated in any way with UnhappyFranchisee.Com.

While we admit that the idea that Legacy Academy would sponsor a website that was reporting on its contentious (and losing) legal battles with its franchisees (LEGACY ACADEMY Ichter Thomas Wins Suit for Legacy Academy Franchise Owners, ICHTER THOMAS Another Win Against Legacy Academy Franchise, LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Complaints) was momentarily amusing, we then read M. Kathleen Hart’s ominous line “The demands made in this letter are serious in nature…” and we nearly sobered up almost immediately.

We then focused on understanding, and then complying with, Ms. Hart’s demands.

You can read Legacy Academy’s threatening letter here:   LEGACY ACADEMY Issues Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com

You can read our response below:

Unhappy Franchisee

.

.

.

.

M. Kathleen Hart, Esq.

Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C.

One Sugarloaf Centre

1960 Satellite Boulevard, Suite 4000

Duluth, Georgia, 30097

.

January 25, 2014

.

Dear Ms. Hart:

Thank you for your letter of January 24, 2014 expressing the concerns of your client, Legacy Academy, about the use of their logo on one of our blog posts.

.

When I contacted your client last August inviting input on our coverage of their franchisee litigation and expressing concern about representations in their franchise marketing materials, I wasn’t expecting 5 months of silence followed by a threatening legal letter(!).

.

But hey… I guess any dialogue is better than none!

.

While I disagree with much of your letter, I will try to alleviate your client’s concerns and comply with your requests within the timeframe you requested.  In return, I hope that your clients will respond to our request for clarification on the important issues we raised.  Perhaps they can even respond directly, without an attorney speaking for them (no offense).

.

Please Correct Me if I’m Mistaken…

.

Ms. Hart, I am just a simple blogger, not an attorney, so please correct me if I am mistaken.

.

I believe that when you refer to your client’s “Mark” you are referring to the graphic that includes the red apple icon and the words “Legacy Academy for Children.”

.

I believe that when you refer to your client’s “Derivative Mark” you are referring to the graphic that includes the “Mark” plus the words “Early Child Care Development and Education Excellence.”

.

I believe that when you refer to the “adulterated Derivative Mark” you are referring to the composite graphic that includes both the “Derivative Mark” plus the url “UnhappyFranchisee.Com” in red type.

.

It seems to me that what you are objecting to is not that we used your client’s “Derivative Mark” in our blog post (which seems permissable under the doctrine of “nominative fair use”), but that the URL of our website appears in Google Image Search in proximity to your client’s logo when Google references the “adulterated Derivative Mark” in its search results.

.

In compliance with your request, I have deleted the “adulterated Derivative Mark” from our website.

.

In its place, and from now on, we will use only the Legacy Academy “Mark,” as permitted by “nominative fair use.”

.

To make doubly (and triply) sure there is no confusion, we have added a disclaimer (see B. below) that should inform even the most inattentive Google Image Searcher.

.

Please let me know if this will satisfy your client’s concerns, or if you think additional disclaimers are necessary.

Legacy Academy Logo

A. Legacy Academy “BEFORE” Logo

Legacy Academy is concerned that the presence of our URL in proximity to their logo “could create confusion in the minds of consumers as to whether the Webpage and the unhappyfranchisee .com website (the “Website”) in general is sponsored by or affiliated with Legacy , or whether Legacy has consented to the use of its Mark in this fashion.”

 

Legacy Academy Logo

B. Legacy Academy Proposed “AFTER” Logo (with disclaimer)

UnhappyFranchisee.Com respectfully submits this revised presentation, which includes a clear disclaimer disassociating Legacy Academy as either a sponsor or affiliate of UF.

Have we have complied with your (somewhat confusing) requests?

.

Ms. Hart, in your letter you wrote:

…Legacy hereby directs that you:

(1) immediately ceases [sic] and desist your use of the Derivative Mark on the Webpage and Website; and

(2) within five (5) days from the date of this letter, provide the undersigned with a writing in which you attests [sic] that you have ceased all use of the Mark , the Derivative Mark or any confusingly similar mark.

 

.

We have complied with your request #1, and are hereby notifying you with “a writing” that we have done so.

.

We have added a prominent disclaimer that should eliminate any likelihood of confusion as to the nature of the Legacy Academy and UnhappyFranchisee.Com relationship  I believe that disclaimer satisfies your request #2, as it has eliminated any likelihood of confusion.

.

As to our continued use of the “Mark,” your impressive credentials and referencing “nominative fair use” in your letter lead me to believe that you understand that we have the legal right to use the Legacy Academy “Mark” in our blog posts.

.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Blogger’s Legal Guide:

“I want to complain about a company. Can I use their name and logo?

“Yes. While trademark law prevents you from using someone else’s trademark to sell your competing products (you can’t make and sell your own “Rolex” watches or name your blog “Newsweek”), it doesn’t stop you from using the trademark to refer to the trademark owner or its products (offering repair services for Rolex watches or criticizing Newsweek’s editorial decisions). That kind of use, known as “nominative fair use,” is permitted if using the trademark is necessary to identify the products, services, or company you’re talking about, and you don’t use the mark to suggest the company endorses you. In general, this means you can use the company name in your review so people know which company or product you’re complaining about.

.

Despite your client’s “incontestable” Federal trademark registration, there are numerous websites, businesses and schools using the name “Legacy Academy,” including a Colorado-based iSchool, an indoor activity center in Wisconsin, a Christian satellite school in California, and a charter school in Rockford, IL.  We think people should know which “Legacy Academy” we are discussing.”

.
According to the Thompson Hall Santi Cerny & Dooley website:

“…website owners may use another’s trademark on their website if they meet the requirements of nominative fair use:

  1. the website owner must use the trademark to describe the genuine trademarked  products being sold;
  2. the website owner is using the trademark no more than necessary; and
  3. the website owner did not create a likelihood of consumer confusion through the trademark.”

.

Ms Hart, I believe UnhappyFranchisee.Com clearly meets the requirements for “nominative fair use” of the Legacy Academy “Mark,” as we are reporting on the business the mark represents, we will use it no more than once per blog post, and our disclaimer clearly eliminates any likelihood of consumer confusion.

.

If we have failed to satisfy your demands, please notify us and explain your rationale immediately so we can address it.

.

As to your warning that several of our articles come “perilously close to constituting libel,” I would like to address those issues with you in a separate communication.

.

Again, thank you for your letter.  I look forward to further correspondence with you and, hopefully, with your client.

.

Sincerely,

ADMIN

UnhappyFranchisee.Com

We will respond to Ms. Hart’s libel warning, so check back soon.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH LEGACY ACADEMY CHILD CARE OR THE LEGACY ACADEMY FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY? PLEASE SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

TAGS: Legacy Academy, Legacy Academy franchise, Legacy Academy child care, Legacy Academy lawsuit, Legacy Academy franchise complaints, Legacy Academy franchise lawsuits, M. Kathleen Hart, Attorney Kathleen Hart, Anderson Tate and Carr, Frank Turner, Melissa Turner, Unhappy Franchisee, cease and desist

LEGACY ACADEMY Issues Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com

January 25, 2014

UnhappyFranchisee.Com has invited the Legacy Academy daycare franchise company and its owners, Melissa Turner and Frank Turner, to provide corrections, clarifications, rebuttals, opposing viewpoints and/or anything else they would like known since we first wrote about them last August.

It’s our intention to spotlight franchise-related disputes and litigation, and invite both sides to provide their viewpoints so that our readers can draw their own conclusions.

If a company is criticized or receives unfavorable reviews, we will immediately make any valid corrections they request, and will try to publish their responses with the same prominence and visibility as the original complaints.

Some companies dispute what’s been written, and provide rebuttals… which we publish.

Other companies acknowledge mistakes that they made in the past, and explain what initiatives they are undertaking to prevent future franchise disputes and franchisee failures.

Other companies refuse to participate in a meaningful dialogue about important issues we raise, and pay attorneys to send us threatening and intimidating letters that they hope (we assume) will silence our questions and make the conversation go away.

Unfortunately, Legacy Academy, Melissa and Frank Turner have decided (at this point) to take the latter approach.

After 5 months of not responding, the Turners’ attorney M. Kathleen Hart sent UnhappyFranchisee.Com the following cease and desist letter:

 

Andersen Tate Carr

January 24, 2014

VIA EMAIL : unhappyfranchisee[at]gmail.com

UnhappyFranchisee.com

RE : UnhappyFranchisee .com’s Unlawful Use of Legacy Academy, Inc’s Registered Service Mark

To Whom it May Concern:

This law firm represents Legacy Academy, Inc. (“Legacy”), the owner of a federal registration for the “Legacy Academy For Children” service mark, USPTO Registration Number 2686283 (the “Mark”), which registration has become incontestable.  It has come to our attention that you are violating Legacy’s protected rights in the Mark by displaying a logo substantially similar to the Mark (the “Derivative Mark”) on the webpage http://www.unhappyfranchisee.com /index . php?s=legacy (the “Webpage”); a copy of the Webpage is enclosed with this letter.

Since at least 2003, Legacy and its licensed franchisees have used the Mark (and more recently, the Derivative Mark) throughout the United States in connection with the advertisement , promotion and provision of child care and early child education services for children. As a result of such use, advertisement , and promotion of the Mark, the Mark has become highly distinctive, has developed significant goodwill and has become well and favorably known throughout the world as identifying Legacy and its services.

The Webpage displays an article discussing a recent decision in a lawsuit involving Legacy. Instead of referring merely to Legacy ‘s corporate name in the article, however, you have displayed the Derivative Mark prominently in the middle of the article and superimposed your domain name on top of the Derivative Mark. Such use of the Derivative Mark cannot reasonably be considered nominative fair use of the Derivative Mark.  Notably, your display and use of the adulterated Derivative Mark on the Webpage results in the adulterated Derivative Mark, and a link to the Webpage , to be displayed as a result in Google ‘s “Images” search feature, based on a search for Legacy Academy. We can only assume that in using the Derivative Mark in this fashion, you intend to capture the attention of consumers searching for Legacy and its services via the Internet, and divert them, at least temporarily, to the Webpage and your website, where they will encounter “news” articles that are designed to disparage the name and reputation of Legacy, its owners and franchisees. Thus, your use of the Derivative Mark is a clear attempt to trade on the goodwill of the Mark and the Derivative Mark for your own purposes and, at least initially, could create confusion in the minds of consumers as to whether the Webpage and the unhappyfranchisee .com website (the “Website”) in general is sponsored by or affiliated with Legacy , or whether Legacy has consented to the use of its Mark in this fashion. The design elements of the Mark and the Derivative Mark are further protected by U.S. copyright law, and your unauthorized public display of the Derivative Mark further violates Legacy’s proprietary copyrights in the Mark and Derivative Mark.

We would, of course, prefer to resolve this situation amicably and without the need for further action. To that end, Legacy hereby directs that you : (1) immediately ceases and desist your use of the Derivative Mark on the Webpage and Website; and (2) within five (5) days from the date of this letter, provide the undersigned with a writing in which you attests [sic] that you have ceased all use of the Mark , the Derivative Mark or any confusingly similar mark.

The demands made in this letter are serious in nature and must be complied with immediately. Should you refuse to honor the demands made in this letter, Legacy will seek legal intervention in the form of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining the Website its operators from further improper and unlawful use Legacy’s service marks, damages as the direct and proximate result of such unlawful use, and related relief. Legacy takes violation of its valuable mark seriously and will take all lawful measures to protect itself and its marks against wrongful acts.

We would also like to take this opportunity to caution you regarding the content of the articles posted on the Website regarding Legacy, as several of the articles come perilously close to constituting libel by suggesting that Legacy “continues” to violate applicable state and federal law regarding its franchise sales activities and that Legacy and its owners are “irreputable,” all in the guise of a recounting of the facts of various legal actions against my client, some of which remain on appeal. To the extent the Website publishes statements regarding Legacy or its owners that are false or otherwise misleading, further action may be warranted.

Please direct all future correspondence to the undersigned. We appreciate your prompt attention to this important matter and look forward to your response.

M. Kathleen Hart, Esq. _ for Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C.

cc: Mr. Frank Turner (via email) Mrs. Melissa Turner (via email)

Read Ms. Hart’s Legacy Academy Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com as a PDF

While we disagree with the assertions made in Ms. Hart’s letter, we will provide a professional and respectful response within the timeframe she requests.

And while there are more constructive and meaningful responses that Legacy Academy, Frank & Melissa Turner could (and should) have made instead of formal legal threats issued by an expensive law firm, we thank them for at least responding.

Some dialogue, we suppose, is better than none.

So, we thank Ms. Kathleen Hart and the Turners for their letter, and invite them to join us in exercising their 1st Amendment rights to open, honest and respectful public debate… perhaps the greatest gift we enjoy as Americans.

We will post our response (or responses) to Ms. Hart’s letter, so check back soon.

Read more about the Legacy Academy franchise:

LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Complaints

LEGACY ACADEMY Ichter Thomas Wins Suit for Legacy Academy Franchise Owners

ICHTER THOMAS Another Win Against Legacy Academy Franchise

Disclosure: The Ichter Thomas law firm are featured in the UnhappyFranchisee.Com Franchisee Attorney Directory.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH LEGACY ACADEMY CHILD CARE OR THE LEGACY ACADEMY FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY? PLEASE SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

TAGS: Legacy Academy, Legacy Academy franchise, Legacy Academy child care, Legacy Academy lawsuit, Legacy Academy franchise complaints, Legacy Academy franchise lawsuits, M. Kathleen Hart, Attorney Kathleen Hart, Anderson Tate & Carr, Frank Turner, Melissa Turner, cease and desist letter, Unhappy Franchisee

LEGACY ACADEMY Invited to Respond to Franchise Complaints

January 25, 2014

The Legacy Academy daycare franchise and its founders, Melissa and Frank Turner, have garnered some pretty unflattering press on UnhappyFranchisee.Com.

We reported that it appeared that the Legacy Academy franchise company has had as many franchisee lawsuits as it has open centers (11).

We reported that “In 2010, the Superior Court of Gwinnett County confirmed an arbitration award finding Legacy had given ‘misleading financial information’ to prospective franchisees,  awarding five (5) former franchisees more than $1 million in damages and rescinding both $1 million in promissory notes and their franchise agreements.”

We reported that “After hearing a case presented by attorney Cary Ichter,  the jury concluded that Legacy and its owners and officers—Frank and Melissa Turner—had engaged in at least two acts of theft by deception, which is a criminal offense.

“As of April, 2013, Legacy was involved in five (5) other lawsuits with former Legacy franchisees, all of whom are represented by Ichter Thomas, LLC, and all of who have similar claims alleging fraud and/or a pattern of racketeering activity.”

We also voiced our concern as to whether Legacy Academy and Melissa & Frank Turner have altered their franchise marketing and sales approach in light of these lawsuits.

Despite multiple franchisee failures and lawsuits, the Legacy Academy website uses terms like “very profitable return,” “our very successful Daycare Franchises,” and states that franchising “is one of the most secure forms of business operation available…”

Legacy AcademyA testimonial video currently posted on the franchise page provides student enrollment representations that could potentially be construed as an earnings claim in violation of the FTC Franchise Rule.

We were (and are) interested in what the company thinks of our observation that Legacy Academy doesn’t seem to have reverted to the highly conservative franchise marketing messages one would expect after being litigated for misleading and deceptive claims.

[Photo, left, Legacy Academy sign, Snellville, GA.  Photo credit:  John Robert Conley.  License:  Creative Commons]

Legacy Academy Asked for Their Side of the Story

Every company and every individual discussed on UnhappyFranchisee.com has the right to address allegations, opinions or other statements made about them, and provide corrections, clarifications or rebuttals.

That’s our policy.

We are all about hosting a dialogue, and letting readers decide for themselves.

When the news is as unflattering as Legacy Academy’s, we often make a special effort to give the company a chance to respond.

In the case of Legacy Academy and Melissa & Frank Turner, we not only included the invitation in our post, we submitted it to them August 9, 2013 via the web form on their website.

We received this confirmation by email:

  Thank You For Contacting Legacy Academy – Corporate

Legacy Academy info@legacyacademy.com via worldsecuresystems.com

8/9/13

Dear Unhappy Franchisee,

Thank you for contacting us at Legacy Academy – Corporate. One of our Legacy team members will contact you shortly. Below is the details of your form submission!

Summary of web form submission:

Your Name

Unhappy Franchisee 555-555-5555

Email Address

UnhappyFranchisee[at]gmail.com

Case Number

7347499

Home Address

123 Unhappy Drive

Unhappy, GA 30518

United States

Reason For Contacting Us?

Press Inquiry: Legacy Academy on UnhappyFranchisee.Com, response requested

Reason Description

Please forward to the principals of Legacy Academy.

UnhappyFranchisee.Com is a franchise issues discussion site that invites commentary on franchisor/franchisee disputes. Our goal is to give both sides of a dispute the opportunity to present their views, and let our readers decide for themselves. Legacy Academy has been mentioned in two recent posts:

LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Complaints http://www.unhappyfranchisee.com/legacy-academy-franchise-complaints/

LEGACY ACADEMY Ichter Thomas Wins Suit for Legacy Academy Franchise Owners http://www.unhappyfranchisee.com/legacy-academy-ichter-thomas-wins-lawsuit/

We invite Legacy Academy to provide us with a rebuttal, explanation, clarification or other statement regarding these franchisee complaints that we will publish with the same prominence as the original posts. We have also be interested in knowing what changes you have made in your franchise sales process and franchisee relations efforts as a result of these lawsuits.

Feel free to also encourage your franchisees, customers, employees or associates to post positive comments of support in the comment sections that follow each post.

Thank you,

ADMIN

UnhappyFranchisee.Com

Legacy Academy: 5 Months of Silence, Then a Legal Threat

After inviting Legacy Academy to address the unflattering press on UnhappyFranchisee.Com, and inviting them to publicize positive steps they have taken to avoid future litigation, we did not hear a peep from them for over 5 months.

Then, on January 24, 2014, we received a letter from Legacy Academy’s attorney, M. Kathleen Hart of Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C.

We will post Ms. Hart’s letter, as well as our response(s) shortly, so check back soon.

Read more about the Legacy Academy franchise:

LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Complaints

LEGACY ACADEMY Ichter Thomas Wins Suit for Legacy Academy Franchise Owners

ICHTER THOMAS Another Win Against Legacy Academy Franchise

Disclosure: The Ichter Thomas law firm are featured in the UnhappyFranchisee.Com Franchisee Attorney Directory.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH LEGACY ACADEMY CHILD CARE OR THE LEGACY ACADEMY FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY? PLEASE SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

TAGS: Legacy Academy, Legacy Academy franchise, Legacy Academy child care, Legacy Academy lawsuit, Legacy Academy franchise complaints, Legacy Academy franchise lawsuits, M. Kathleen Hart, Attorney Kathleen Hart, Anderson Tate & Carr, Frank Turner, Melissa Turner, Unhappy Franchisee

Next Page »

Bottom