Holman v. Glen Abbey Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | A20A0895 |
| Citation | 356 Ga.App. 379,847 S.E.2d 1 |
| Parties | HOLMAN et al. v. GLEN ABBEY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Martin A. Shelton, for appellants.
Nowack Howard, Jason A. LoMonaco, for appellee.
In June 2015, the City of Alpharetta notified appellee Glen Abbey Homeowners Association, Inc., that the Association would be required to make more than $1.9 million in repairs to a lake located in the Glen Abbey subdivision. A majority of the owners of lots adjoining the lake amended the declaration of covenants specific to them so as to shift responsibility for the repairs to all 535 members of the Association. When the Association denied that this amendment was effective and assessed repair costs against the lake lot owners, a majority of them voted to terminate the relevant declaration and brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Association. The trial court later granted the Association judgment on the pleadings on some of plaintiffs’ claims and on the Association's counterclaims, and we granted plaintiffs’ application for interlocutory review. On appeal, plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the declarations at issue, in its holding that an Alpharetta ordinance did not bind the Association, and in its grant of injunctive relief to the Association. We affirm the trial court's construction of the declarations, but we vacate its remedy and remand for further proceedings.
"On appeal, we review de novo the trial court's decision on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and we construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the appellant[s], drawing all reasonable inferences in [their] favor." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Reliance Equities v. Lanier 5, LLC , 299 Ga. 891, 893 (1), 792 S.E.2d 680 (2016).
Thus viewed in their favor, the record shows that plaintiffs, the owners of 12 of the 16 lake lots, filed their complaint on January 30, 2019. The complaint alleged that within the Glen Abbey subdivision is "a 4.5 acre lake that serves as the storm water detention pond for the entire subdivision" and is "owned collectively" by the 16 lake lot owners and the Association, "which owns a large recreation area with a lot[-]sized frontage along the lake." The Glen Abbey subdivision is governed by a declaration of covenants and restrictions ("the Glen Abbey Declaration"), which provides in relevant part:
Only the Owners of Lots which lie partially within the Lake will have any rights with respect to the Lake covering their respective Lots and the Members shall have the right to use that portion of the Lake contiguous to part of the Common Area. The Association shall have no liability or duty whatsoever with respect to the Lake, except to the extent that a portion of the Lake exists on a portion of the Common Area and then only to the extent provided by a separate declaration addressing the Lake. .... If the [developer,] the Association and such Owners do not maintain the Lake in accordance with the terms of such recorded document, the Association shall have the right, but not the obligation, to provide any maintenance or repair required of the Lake in accordance with such recorded document, and the additional costs and expenses so incurred by the Association, beyond its pro rata contribution required under such recorded document, shall become part of the assessments for which such Owners are personally liable hereunder....
(Emphasis supplied.)
A second declaration of covenants, restrictions, and easements ("the Lake Declaration") laid out the respective responsibilities of the lake lot owners and the Association and was recorded on March 22, 1999. The Lake Declaration provides in relevant part:
(Emphasis supplied.) The Lake Declaration also provided for its own duration and amendment:
(Emphasis supplied.) The Glen Abbey subdivision was annexed by the City of Alpharetta in 2005.
According to a July 2016 summary sent to the Association, the projected cost of repairs to the lake and the dam was $1,979,554. In 2018, the Association sought to assess this amount from the lake lot owners, 13 of whom executed an Amendment to the Lake Declaration, recorded on May 22, 2018. The Amendment provided in relevant part that the Association was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the lake and dam and "shall have the right ... to assess the Association's full membership for the costs of all such maintenance and repair[.]" (Emphasis supplied.) On July 27, 2018, the Association recorded a notice of its opinion that the lake lot owners’ Amendment was invalid. On March 8, 2019, twelve lake lot owners also recorded a written Disapproval of the Lake Declaration so as to invalidate the Lake Declaration within 20 years after its adoption, or on March 22, 2019.
As later amended, the complaint sought extensive declaratory relief, including as to the meaning of the Lake Declaration, the validity of the Amendment and the Disapproval, and the invalidity of the Assessment (Counts 1-3), and that a City of Alpharetta ordinance making homeowners’ associations responsible for maintaining storm water management facilities "take[ ] primacy over any portion of the unamended Lake [Declaration]" (Count 4). The complaint also sought to restrain the Association from collecting the Assessment (Counts 5-7), to quiet title concerning the Association's notice of the Amendment's invalidity (Count 9), and to recover costs and attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11 (Count 8).1 The Association answered and counterclaimed for a declaration cancelling the lake lot owners’ amendment and disapproval of the Lake Declaration (Count 1); to quiet title by "permitting the Association to file any such order in the land records ... to effect cancellation of the purported amendments" to the Declaration (Count 2). The counterclaims also sought a permanent injunction, a money judgment for the unpaid Assessement, and costs and attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11 (Counts 3-5). The Association also moved to dismiss some of plaintiffs’ claims on the ground that they were seeking declarations as to events that had already occurred and for judgment on the pleadings.
After oral argument,2 the trial court granted the Association's motion, finding that the Amendment was invalid because it improperly shifted the burden of the lake repair from the lake lot owners to the Association and because it did not gain the approval of the Association; that when read with the original Glen Abbey Declaration, the Lake Declaration expressed the intent that the 16 lake lot owners and the Association share the expenses of maintenance and repair in "17 equal shares"; and that the Alpharetta ordinance had no bearing on the dispute between the parties. The trial court therefore invalidated the lake lot owners’ Amendment and Disapproval and held the Lake Declaration "valid and remain[ing] in full force and effect." In a separate order, the trial court also dismissed the three counts of the complaint seeking declaratory relief as to the Amendment, the Disapproval, and the Assessment on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to issue an advisory opinion on these matters arising in the past.
On appeal, plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in its construction of the Declarations (including the validity of the Amendment and the Disapproval as well as the import of the Alpharetta ordinance), in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory relief, and in granting the Association injunctive relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
1. The crux of this appeal is plaintiffs’ assertions that the trial court erred in (a) its construction of the Declarations, (b) declaring the Amendment invalid, and (c) declaring the Disapproval invalid. We disagree.
The Supreme Court of Georgia has held that although restrictive covenants must be strictly construed in favor of the landowner, they must also be construed "so as to give a reasonable, lawful and effective meaning to all manifestations of intention by the parties rather than an interpretation which leaves a part of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stanford v. City of Atlanta
...of proving a city ordinance is production of the original ordinance or a certified copy thereof." Holman v. Glen Abbey Homeowners Assn. , 356 Ga. App. 379, 385 (2), 847 S.E.2d 1 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted).In its dismissal order, the trial court relied heavily on the Supreme C......