Goodyear v. Trust Co. Bank

Decision Date12 March 1981
Docket NumberNo. 36850,36850
Citation247 Ga. 281,276 S.E.2d 30
PartiesGOODYEAR v. TRUST COMPANY BANK, as Trustee et al.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Moreton Rolleston, Jr., Charles H. Tisdale, Jr., King & Spalding, Patricia T. Barmeyer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., James S. Stokes, IV, Alston, Miller & Gaines, Atlanta, for William H. Goodyear.

J. Thomas Whelchel, Dickey, Whelchel, Miles & Brown, James B. Gilbert, Jr., Bennet, Gilbert, Gilbert, Whittle, Harrell & Gayner, Brunswick, Thomas C. Benedict, Decatur, W. Colquitt Carter, Atlanta, for Trust Co. Bank, trustee, et al.

CLARKE, Justice.

The preservation of the beaches on Georgia's coastal islands and the efforts to arrest erosion on these beaches has been the subject of litigation for several years. This is another case which places in issue the rights of property owners and the State of Georgia to erect and maintain the structures along the edge of these beaches, which structures are designed for the purpose of controlling erosion. The erosion problems as they exist on Sea Island, Georgia, the location in question in this litigation, were described in Rolleston v. State of Georgia, 245 Ga. 576, 266 S.E.2d 189 (1980).

The present case arose when the plaintiff filed his complaint against twelve defendants seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages from the defendants on the ground that their participation in the construction of erosion control structures interfered with his rights as a Sea Island property owner to recreational easements as well as easements of ingress and egress. A non-jury trial was conducted and the trial court found for the defendants, granting no relief to the plaintiff. From this judgment the plaintiff, Goodyear, appeals.

Evidence offered at the trial supports the findings of fact of the trial court, the highlights of which will be reported here. All of the beachfront property owners between 9th and 18th Streets on Sea Island have constructed sloping rock revetments on the edge of the beach in an effort to control erosion. Two of the owners in this area have had the revetments in place since 1975 and the remaining revetments have been constructed between October, 1979, and January, 1980. Express approval of the Sea Island-Company and Sea Island Properties was given for all of this construction and all of the revetments built after the enactment of the Shore Assistance Act of 1979, Code Ann. § 43-3001 et seq., Ga. Laws 1979, p. 1636, were built pursuant to permits granted by the Shore Assistance Committee. A portion of the revetments in the 9th to 18th Street area lie on the foreshore, the area between the high and low water, often referred to as the "hard sand beach." The remaining portions lie on the soft sand beach. Between 4th and 8th Streets on Sea Island, all of the property owners have built a sloping concrete wall on the edge of the beach, with the wall being located partially on the foreshore and partially on the soft sand beach. This wall was also built with the approval of Sea Island Properties and the State of Georgia pursuant to Shore Assistance Committee permits.

The rock revetments and concrete walls run approximately parallel to the water line of the ocean and extend onto the beach for only a short distance. Approximately ten to fifteen feet of the lateral portion of the rock revetment is above ground on the edge of the beach and the extension of the sloping concrete walls is approximately the same.

The Sea Island Company and/or Sea Island Properties built a sloping concrete wall at the edge of the beach next to the Sea Island Beach Club in the early 1960's. In 1979, this wall was extended north to 4th Street. As is the case with the other walls and revetments, a portion of this wall is on the foreshore and a portion is on the soft sand beach. The wall was also built pursuant to a license issued by the State of Georgia and the newly extended wall was built after the issuance of a permit by the Shore Assistance Committee.

A number of streets which run perpendicular to the beach dead end at or near the beach between 4th and 18th Streets. After the revetments and sloping walls were constructed, walkways and cross-over structures have been built from the end of each of these streets to the beach itself. The walkways built into the walls and cross-over structures over the revetments provide easy access to the beach by any person, even a person in a wheelchair. Prior to the erection of the rock revetments and sloping concrete walls, the beach was separated from the upland property by a vertical sand bluff several feet in height along the area between 4th and 18th Streets. Access to the beach from this vertical sand bluff was by jumping down or crawling down. At the time of the trial of this case, plaintiff William Goodyear owned a house on Sea Island beach on the north side of 35th Street with direct and unencumbered access from his house to the beach on Sea Island. This house is located approximately one and one-half miles from the houses of the defendant property owners closest to him.

Goodyear contends that the property owners, the State of Georgia and the developer of Sea Island have interfered with his rights to utilize the beach and three parks which were included on early plats prepared for the developer. In an effort to secure the rights he claims, Goodyear filed this action seeking injunctive relief, declaratory relief and damages.

Two plats of survey were prepared for earlier owners of Sea Island for the purpose of subdividing it in order that it might be developed. The first of these plats was the work of J. A. Blanton on behalf of St. Simons-Long Island Company which held record title to the island in 1923, the date of the plat. The second plat was prepared by F. J. Torras for Sea Island Company in 1928. At that time, Sea Island Company owned those portions of Sea Island which had not been conveyed away by its predecessor in title. Each of these plats contained a recital in which the owner reserved the title to and right to control and regulate the use of all the land comprising the beach and area between the high and low water on the Atlantic Ocean and Hampton River. When parcels of land were conveyed by the early owners to various individual property owners, they were described by reference to either the Blanton or Torras plats and the property owners involved in this case, including Goodyear, all hold title by virtue of a chain which extends back to these early owners.

Having recited the pertinent facts in the record, it should also be noted that another circumstance has found its way into this case which should be considered by the court. Sea Island Properties, Inc., one of the defendants, asserts that during the pendency of this appeal plaintiff Goodyear has conveyed all of his property on Sea Island to Charles Tittle. Goodyear denies that the deed has been delivered, but an affidavit filed by Sea Island Properties recites that Tittle has applied for and received a permit from the Shore Assistance Committee to build a rock revetment east of his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Justus v. State, 36686
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1981
  • Rolleston v. Sea Island Properties, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1985
    ...The record developed in the present case consists largely of the record and transcript from the cases of Goodyear v. Trust Company Bank, 247 Ga. 281, 276 S.E.2d 30 (1981), and Rolleston v. State, 245 Ga. 576, 266 S.E.2d 189 (1980). Most of the facts relating to this case are set out in thos......
  • Kappers v. DeKalb County Bd. of Health
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 25, 1994
    ...Ga. 72 (5 SE2d 39)." ' Nat. Council of Jewish Women v. Cobb County, 247 Ga. 198 (275 SE2d 315) (1981) and cits.; Goodyear v. Trust Co. Bank, 247 Ga. 281(1) (276 SE2d 30) (1981).... Of course, a case may be moot, but, because the [alleged] error is capable of repetition and yet evades review......
  • Georgia Power Co. v. Hunt, S95A1820
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1996
    ...to pursue a claim in his capacity as a landowner and the claim will be rendered moot by the transfer. Goodyear v. Trust Co. Bank, 247 Ga. 281, 284(1), 276 S.E.2d 30 (1981). Here, however, Georgia Power is the plaintiff and it has not transferred its easements. Rather, the only transfer was ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT