Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The United States Court of appeals asked the court to answer a question that stemmed from a dispute over the proper interpretation under Georgia law of a contract insuring real property. The primary issue presented was whether the court's ruling in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mabry, a case involving an automobile insurance policy wherein the court held that a provision requiring the insurer to pay for loss to the insured's car required the insurer to also pay for any diminution in value of the repaired vehicle, was applicable. The court held that its ruling in Mabry was not limited by the type of property insured, but rather spoke generally to the measure of damages an insurer was obligated to pay. View "Royal Capital Dev., LLC v. Maryland Casualty Co." on Justia Law

Wife and husband were married in 1998 and wife filed a complaint for divorce in 2008. The parties resolved all issues by agreement except the disposition of certain real property which was purchased by wife prior to the marriage. In 2005, wife transferred the property into a family trust for the benefit of her three children. Considering the lack of any evidence of the value of the maintenance work performed by husband, the testimony of wife that he was paid for this work, the fact that husband used a portion of the property rent-free as a commercial recording studio, and the fact that the property paid for the mortgage through its own rents, the trial court had evidentiary support for its finding that any increased value in the property attributable to husband's contributions and the expenditure of marital funds was nominal. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion to divide the marital property equitably. View "Pina v. Pina" on Justia Law

Micah L. Haffner filed this action to quiet title to a parcel of land in Haralson County that he claimed to have purchased from his mother's estate. The trial court granted summary judgment to James and Regina Davis and Community and Southern Bank and denied Haffner's motion for summary judgment. Because Haffner had been in possession of the property at issue for less than 20 years and failed to exercise reasonable diligence, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Haffner v. Davis, et al" on Justia Law

EGL purchased 427 acres of land in Newton County, Georgia, for the purpose of constructing a landfill and the Board declined to issue a letter of zoning compliance based on its interpretation that a landfill was not a permitted use under the Newton County zoning ordinance. The court held that the trial court erred in holding that East Ga. Land and Development Co. v. Baker mooted any issue regarding the validity of the process used by the county to enact the original zoning ordinance. The court also held that the trial court erred by relying on parol evidence to provide a link between the original set of maps incorporated onto the 1985 zoning ordinance and the set that was currently located in the zoning office. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "East Georgia Land and Development Co., LLC v. Newton County, et al." on Justia Law

Stiles Apartment filed suit asserting ownership over a parking area and sought interlocutory and permanent injunctive relief to prohibit ACC from exercising any control over the parking area. ACC counterclaimed for declaratory judgment, ejectment, and breach of contract. The trial court issued an order granting the request for injunctive relief against ACC's efforts to assert ownership or control over the parking area but denied a request to enjoin ACC from arresting Mr. Stiles for towing vehicles from the parking area. ACC appealed from the order. The court held that there was evidence authorizing the grant of interlocutory injunctive relief and the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The court rejected ACC's defenses of laches, waiver, and the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County v. Stiles Apartment, Inc." on Justia Law

BB&T brought suit against Borrowers and Guarantors for more than $19 million then due under certain promissory notes at issue. The promissory notes were executed as a result of BB&T's issuance of 16 loans for residential housing development. In Case No. S1161728, appellants argued that the Court of Appeals in holding that no valid foreclosure sale occurred, erroneously relied on its determination that BB&T did not satisfy the Statue of Frauds. The court held that there were no valid foreclosure sales to prevent BB&T from suing on the notes in the absence of confirmation under OCGA 44-14-161, regardless of whether there was a valid executory sales contract which satisfied the Statute of Frauds. In Case No. S11G1729, the court held that, although the Court of Appeals correctly held that none of BB&T's claims was barred by its failure to seek confirmation after the foreclosure auctions, that court did err in holding that the 2008 guaranties did not sufficiently identify any pre-2008 notes and that the 2008 Guarantors were estopped by BB&T's part performance from asserting a Statute of Frauds defense to BB&T's claims against them on pre-2008 notes.View "Tampa Investment Group, Inc., et al. v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., Inc.; Legacy Communities Group, Inc., et al. v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2007, Sea Gardens petitioned under OCGA 23-3-60 to quiet title to waterfront property in McIntosh County. Appellants appealed from the trial court's entry of a consent judgment purporting to resolve their ongoing dispute with Sea Gardens over title to the property at issue. Because both parties did not in fact consent to all terms of the consent judgment, the trial court erred in issuing it, and therefore the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings in the trial court. View "Allen, et al. v. Sea Gardens Seafood, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involved an underlying action for quiet title and came to the court from the trial court's grant of appellee BB&T's motion for summary judgment. The court could not sustain appellants' allegation that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to BB&T because genuine issues of material fact remained. The court also held that the trial court did not err when it granted BB&T's motion for summary judgment when appellants failed to show specific damages to support their claim of slander of title. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Giles, et al. v. Swimmer, et al." on Justia Law

This appeal involved three adjacent properties in rural Lee County owned by the Goodsons, the Ellers, and the Fords. All three properties descended from a common owner who recorded, but later withdrew, a subdivision plat that included the Goodson Property and the Eller Property. The Goodsons and Ellers claimed that they have the right to use all of "Carol Street." In 2007, the Fords filed a petition to quiet title to the Ford Property, which included Carol Street. The court affirmed the trial court's rejection of the Goodsons' and Ellers' claim of title to Carol Street by adverse possession; held that the trial court properly found the Goodsons' interest in Carol Street based on the subdivision plat was in the nature of an easement rather than legal title and the Fords' were estopped from denying the Goodsons' easement by express grant; held that the trial court did not err in placing limitations on the scope of the Goodsons' easement to use Carol Street; and rejected the Goodsons' and Ellers' claims of unclean hands and laches. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Goodson, et al. v. Ford, et al." on Justia Law

This appeal involved a title to a house and lot in a residential subdivision in Forsyth County. The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and defendants appealed. The court held that the trial court properly rejected defendants' claim of bona fide purchaser status; defendants' argument that the trial court erred in holding that the children acquired a collective two-thirds interest in the property by virtue of the 1998 quitclaim deed from their father was without merit; the trial court properly dismissed defendants' claim for equitable subrogation; the trial court did not err in dismissing defendants' counterclaim for unjust enrichment; and the trial court did not err in dismissing defendants' laches defense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. et al. v. Shelton et al." on Justia Law