Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellants filed a petition to quiet title against all the world as to two parcels of land (Tracts 1 and 1A) in Lavonia, asserting a claim of slander of title against Hartwell Railroad Company (Hartwell). Hartwell only disputed appellants' title to the .67 acres of land comprising Tract 1A, claiming that the property was within the 100-foot right-of-way it held on either side of its railroad running through Lavonia. An appointed special master issued an order subsequently adopted by the trial court granting Hartwell's motion and denying appellants' motion. Appellants appealed, arguing that the trial court erroneously concluded that Hartwell held undisputed record and prescriptive title to Tract 1A by relying on certain inadmissible evidence. The court held that, even if the court determined that the trial court erred by concluding that Hartwell had title to Tract 1A as a matter of law, appellants would not be entitled to a reversal of the summary judgment entered in Hartwell's favor in view of the trial court's unchallenged rulings that appellants, as a matter of law, could not prove their own title to the property. As such, appellants could not benefit from resolution of the issues on appeal and the appeal was dismissed as moot.

Appellant owned and operated the Sewell Creek Energy Facility, a "peaking" power plant that began operating in 2000. Appellees, neighbors of the power plant, filed suit in 2007 alleging that the power plant constituted a nuisance. At issue was whether appellants were entitled to summary judgment where the power plant was either a permanent nuisance or continuing nuisance that could be abated. The court found that the power plant's exhaust silencing system, which was an integral part of the gas turbines that generated power, was an enduring feature of the power plant's plan of construction and the noise emanating from the exhaust stacks resulted from the essential method of the plant's operation. Consequently, the exhaust stacks were a permanent nuisance. Thus, the court held that the Court of Appeals erred when it omitted any consideration of whether the nuisance resulted from an enduring feature of the power plant's plan of construction or an essential method of its operation and grappled only with whether the nuisance could be abated at "slight expense." The court held that appellees' action was barred under the statute of limitation for permanent nuisances because they did not file their lawsuit until almost seven years after the plant became operational, unless some new harm that was not previously observable occurred within the four years preceding the filing of their cause of action. The court also held that, to the extent the trial court found that a factual issue remained concerning whether there was an "adverse change in the nature" of the noises and vibrations coming from the plant after the start of the 2004 operating season, the denial of summary judgment was appropriate. By contrast, to the extent that the trial court found that a factual issue remained concerning whether there was an "adverse change in the... extent and amount" of the noises and vibrations after the 2004 operating season, the denial of summary judgment was inappropriate. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

These related appeals concern the rights of certain sign companies to construct billboards in areas formerly located in unincorporated Fulton County that are now located in the recently created cities of Sandy Springs, Milton, and Johns Creek and a recently annexed portion of the city of Alpharetta (collectively, "cities"). At issue was whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the sign companies based on its determination that the companies had a vested right to erect the billboards as of the date of their applications were filed. The court rejected the county and cities' arguments and held that the sign companies had vested rights to construct the billboards at issue where there were no valid ordinances regulating the construction of billboards at the time the applications were filed and the sign companies were entitled to construct, maintain, and operate all signs for which they submitted applications. Accordingly, the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the sign companies was affirmed.

Lucien Cabrel died in December 1963 and Cabrel's wife and four minor children were the recipients of a joint award of year's support in 1964. In 2000, Cabrel's two daughters filed a petition to partition real property in Henry and Spalding counties in which property the daughters claimed an interest by virtue of the 1964 joint award of year's support. The daughters also sought an accounting and to recover from their mother income generated by the property between 1964-1997. In Case No. S11A0212, the mother appealed the denial of summary judgment on the partitioning issue and in Case No. S11A0214, the daughters took issue with the trial court's denial of their motion for summary judgment, its failure to conduct a hearing on their motion for attorney fees, and its determinations that they were barred from having an accounting and were not entitled to prejudgment interest. The court held that since the motion to set aside was filed more than three years after the entry of judgment of partition and that judgment was made by a court with jurisdiction, the trial court did not err when it denied the mother's motion to set aside the judgment of partition. The court held also that the partitioning judgment was not appealed and the daughters cannot now complain that they had a greater interest in the property than that which was awarded in 2004; that the trial court did not err in concluding that the daughters were not entitled to income from the property where they did not meet certain contingencies; and that the trial court did not err when it did not award attorney fees since the daughters were not awarded any damages.

Harvey Strother, who was domiciled in Georgia, bequeathed a Florida condominium to his long time mistress, Anne Melican, but prior to his death, he entered into a contract to sell the condominium. Although Strother died before the closing date, the condominium was nevertheless eventually sold pursuant to the agreement he had entered into before he died. When Melican filed an action to collect the proceeds from the sale, the executor and trustee of the testamentary marital trust and the Strother's grandson and beneficiary under the will, filed a response as caveators to the will. At issue was whether the bequest of the real property in question had been adeemed based on the sale and whether Melican therefore was not entitled to the proceeds of the sale. The court held that pursuant to Fla. Stat. 732.606(2)(a), Melican, as the specific devisee of the Florida condominium under the will, was entitled to the proceeds from the sale after Strother's death, as these proceeds had not yet been paid to decedent before he died.

Husband and wife executed a will in 1980, which was expressly identified as being "joint and mutual," bequeathing all of their property to each other as the survivor in fee simple and at the death of the survivor, the residue of the estate was to be divided equally among husband's two children, David and Darrell, and wife's two children, Deana and Diane. After husband died in 2005, wife probated the 1980 will, became the executor, and conveyed husband's estate to herself. In November 2005, wife executed another will which could, at her death, leave 20% of the estate to appellant, Deana, and the residue to the children of Deana and Diane. Deana then obtained wife's power of attorney and conveyed all of her mother's real estate to her two children and to appellee, Diane's child. When wife died in 2008, Deana offered the 2005 will for probate and Diane filed a caveat and also sought to petition the 1980 will as the last will and testament. The court held that the trial court did not err when it applied the law in place before the 1998 probate code was adopted to determine whether husband and wife had a contract not to revoke the 1980 will; when it concluded that the 1980 will was joint and mutual and that husband and wife had an enforceable contract not to revoke the 1980 will; when it did not in fact find that the fee simple conveyance to wife was a marital trust; when it made no rulings as to whether wife's 2005 will was a contract, and as such, that issue could not be raised on appeal; and when the 1980 will specifically provided that the residue of the survivor's estate was to be divided equally among the four children. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's order that the 1980 will would be specifically enforced by equity.