Holbrook v. Davison
| Decision Date | 08 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 46375,46375 |
| Citation | 375 S.E.2d 840,258 Ga. 844 |
| Parties | HOLBROOK et al. v. DAVISON et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Donald W. Huskins, Huskins & Huskins, Eatonton, for Dennis L. Holbrook et al.
G.L. Dickens, Jr., Milledgeville, for Larry J. Davison et al.
The appellants and the appellees all own lots in the Oconee Farms Subdivision in Putnam County. In July, 1988 appellees sued the appellants, the Holbrooks, in Putnam Superior Court, alleging that the Holbrooks were using their lots to maintain cows and horses, in violation of restrictive covenants appearing in the subdivision plat.
The covenants were:
1. All lots shall be used for single family residences only.
* * *
4. Only 2 out-buildings (detached garage, barn, storage shed, gazebo, or boathouse) may be erected on each lot in addition to the dwelling house.
* * *
12. Boundary fences are restricted to 48 inches in height or less.
The evidence showed that the Holbrooks own sixteen lots in the subdivision and built their residence on a tract comprised of four lots. Their other lots, which total approximately thirty-five acres, do not adjoin their residence. The Holbrooks have used approximately twenty-three acres of these remaining lots to maintain horses and cows, and have constructed fences on the remaining twelve acres with the intention of maintaining horses and cows. The number of horses and cows on the lots has fluctuated between seven and twenty-five head.
The trial court held, first, that appellees were not barred by laches from enforcing the covenants and second, that under the circumstances the appellants were not permitted to maintain cows, horses, and other livestock.
The trial court enjoined the Holbrooks from maintaining livestock on their lots, but also wrote that livestock could be maintained by an occupant of a single family residence in connection with the use and enjoyment by the occupant of the residence.
1. The issue in this case is: May the appellants maintain livestock on their lots without a single-family residence when a restrictive covenant of the subdivision states "All lots shall be used for single family residences only."
The general rule is that the owner of land has the right to use it for any lawful purpose. Restrictions upon an owner's use of land must be clearly established and must be strictly construed. Davis v. Miller, 212 Ga. 836, 837, 96 S.E.2d 498 (1957). Moreover, any doubt concerning restrictions on use of land will be construed in favor of the grantee. Voyles v. Knight, 220 Ga. 305, 138 S.E.2d 565 (1964).
Appellees argue that this case is controlled by Grove Lakes Subdivision, Inc. v. Hollingsworth, 218 Ga. 443, 128 S.E.2d 499 (1962). We disagree.
In Grove Lakes, the Court enjoined Hollingsworth from using his lot as a cow pasture when his deed read "this property is to be used for residential purposes exclusively...." ...." The restrictive covenant of the subdivision in the present case reads "All lots shall be used for single family residences only."
The language of the covenants are similar, but the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Douglas v. Wages
...Moreover, any doubt concerning restrictions on use of land will be construed in favor of the grantee. [Cit.]" Holbrook v. Davison, 258 Ga. 844(1), 375 S.E.2d 840 (1989). The first restriction clearly limits the use to which the property may be put to "residential purposes." Elder v. Watts, ......
-
De Peralta v. Blackberry Mountain Ass'n, Inc.
...S.E.2d 736 (2000), and generally speaking, an owner of land has the right to use it for “any lawful purpose.” Holbrook v. Davison, 258 Ga. 844, 845(1), 375 S.E.2d 840 (1989). Thus, “[r]estrictions upon an owner's use of land must be clearly established,” id., and covenants restricting the u......
-
Sailak, LLC v. Forsyth Cnty.
...of land has the right to use it for any lawful purpose." Douglas v. Wages, 523 S.E.2d 330, 331 (Ga. 1999) (quoting Holbrook v. Davison, 375 S.E.2d 840, 841 (Ga. 1989)). Accordingly, purported land use limitations require clear evidence that is "beyond reasonable doubt of the existence, appl......
-
Yates v. Dublin Sir Shop, Inc.
...found by implication, which is not favored. Sissel v. Smith, 242 Ga. 595, 596(2), 250 S.E.2d 463 (1978). Accord Holbrook v. Davison, 258 Ga. 844, 845(1), 375 S.E.2d 840 (1989). But if the intent of the parties "is clear and it contravenes no rule of law and sufficient words are used to arri......