Bruce v. Garges
| Decision Date | 08 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 46404,46404 |
| Citation | 379 S.E.2d 783,259 Ga. 268 |
| Parties | BRUCE et al. v. GARGES et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Anthony H. Abbott, James B. Talley, Abbott, Talley & Abbott, Savannah, for Edward C. Bruce, et al.
Reid W. Harris, Brunswick, Robert O. Smith, Atlanta, Lucian J. Endicott, St. Simons Island, W.N. Little, Thomas J. Dickey, Brunswick, Moreton Rolleston, Atlanta, Terry L. Readdick, George M. Rountree, Brunswick, for Robert L. Garges, et al.
Eighteen years after this land registration action was originally filed, the trial court entered its final order to establish the respective rights of the property owners on the one hand and their predecessor in title, the Bruce family, on the other, to accreted land in the East Beach subdivision of St. Simons Island. The Bruces 1 appeal claiming the trial court erred in failing to more narrowly define the extent of the property owners' recreational and access easements in the area to be registered.
The question whether the owners of lots in the subdivision possessed an easement to enjoy the use of the beach and to have access to it was addressed and resolved by this Court in Smith v. Bruce, 241 Ga. 133, 244 S.E.2d 559 (1978). The issue in this appeal, then, is whether the trial court, in adopting the rule of Smith v. Bruce, supra, erroneously refused to limit the recreational use easement to an area of soft sand beach immediately adjacent to the high water mark and to limit the access easement to the beach to the extension of pre-existing streets as proposed for public access to the beach in a settlement reached between the Bruces and the State of Georgia and Glynn County concerning public use of the beach area. 2
1. East Beach subdivision was originally platted by civil engineer J.B. High in 1914 for the Bruce family which at that time owned the entire undeveloped tract. Lots were sold referencing the recorded plat. The plat shows a street, Beach Drive, running along the oceanward edge of the subdivision from First through Ninth Streets with a strip of land, varying from 25 to 300 feet wide, between Beach Drive and the mean high water line. Another strip of land below the mean high water line is designated "Smooth, Hard Beach--500 feet wide, 7,000 feet long." 3 The area between Beach Drive and the mean high water mark has, over the years, undergone extensive accretion. In 1970, when the Bruces filed this action to register the accreted land, it amounted to approximately 26.4 acres, and now, in 1989 as this case concludes, involves over 48 acres. As a result of a settlement of the claims of the State and Glynn County, however, 33 acres have been conveyed to Glynn County. The conveyed property runs along the beach from First to Ninth Streets at a width varying from 450 to 578 feet west of the high water mark and includes rights of access by extension of the cross-streets of the East Beach subdivision across the remaining 15 acres of accreted land which abuts Beach Drive. It is this 15 acres which the trial court finally registered in favor of the Bruces subject, inter alia, to:
[a] private property right or easement of use, in favor of the property owners in East Beach Subdivision not only in the streets and alleys of said subdivision, but also in the beach area, including both the hard beach as far as legally possible 4 and the area of soft beach between the mean high water line and the street designated as Beach Drive on the 1914 J.B. High plat ... as provided in Smith v. Bruce, 241 Ga. 133, at 141 (1978). [Emphasis supplied and footnote added.]
2. In entering this judgment, the trial court was complying with the "law of the case" rule. OCGA § 9-11-60(h) provides "that any ruling by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals in a case shall be binding in all subsequent proceedings in the case in the lower court and in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals as the case may be." There can be no argument but that this rule applies, for it was in Smith v. Bruce, that the extent of the access and use easements of the lot owners was decided. The rule applies because the same parties and issues are involved and the evidentiary posture of the case remains the same. Compare Modern Roofing, etc., Works v. Owen, 174 Ga.App. 875, 876, 332 S.E.2d 14 (1985). The question then becomes whether Smith v. Bruce established the broad use and access easements as stated in the trial court's order or whether Smith v. Bruce should be read to restrict both the access easement and recreational use easement as requested by the Bruce family.
3.(a). It is apparent to us that the holding in Smith v. Bruce, did two things. One it recognized broad use and access easements in the entire open area shown on the 1914 plat between the median high water line and East Beach Drive and two,it recognized the effect of accretion on both the underlying fee owned by the Bruce family and on the use and access easements to which the lot owners were entitled.
The naming of the subdivision, "East Beach Subdivision;" the subdividing of practically all of the land area owned except the beach area; the designating of the front or easternmost street as "Beach Drive;" the leaving of an open area between an area designated as "smooth, hard beach" and "Beach Drive" without any reservations; the entering on the plat ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Severance v. Patterson
...399, 403 (1992) (recognizing continued public access easement to gain entry to river despite shifts in river bed); Bruce v. Garges, 259 Ga. 268, 379 S.E.2d 783, 785 (1989) (concluding that rights of holders of recreational use and access easements to beach area expanded as rights of holder ......
-
Bryant v. Cox Enterprises Inc.
...in that case in the lower court and in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals as the case may be.”); Bruce v. Garges, 259 Ga. 268, 270(2), 379 S.E.2d 783 (1989). FN6. Jewell I, 251 Ga.App. at 811–14(2), 555 S.E.2d 175. FN7. See supra, Division I. 8. OCGA § 51–5–2(a); see OCGA § 51–5–1(a)......
-
In re IS
..."on the ground that changed circumstances so require in the best interest of the child." OCGA § 15-11-40(b). See also Bruce v. Garges, 259 Ga. 268(2), 379 S.E.2d 783 (1989) ("law of the case rule" applies where parties, issues and evidentiary posture of case remain the same). 6. "Deprivatio......
-
Williams v. State
...no relevance to the question of the sufficiency of different evidence presented at the new trial. See generally Bruce v. Garges, 259 Ga. 268, 270(2), 379 S.E.2d 783 (1989) (law of the case rule applies where “the same parties and issues are involved and the evidentiary posture of the case r......