Kinard v. RYMAN FARM HOMEOWNERS
| Decision Date | 28 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. S04A1127.,S04A1127. |
| Citation | 598 S.E.2d 479,278 Ga. 149 |
| Parties | KINARD et al. v. RYMAN FARM HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William W. Keith, III, Chatsworth, Edward Hine, Jr., Rome, for appellants.
Brinson, Askew, Berry, Seigler and Richardson, C. King Askew, Mark M.J. Webb, Rome, Morris & Dean, R. Leslie Waycaster, Jr., Dalton, for appellees.
Appellees Ryman Farm Homeowners' Association, Inc. and its individual property owners brought a complaint for injunctive relief against appellants Robert Kinard, Kinard Realty, Inc., and Kinard Development, Inc. (Kinard), to prevent the development of the fourth phase of a residential subdivision known as The Ryman Farm. The trial court granted the requested relief. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion in that ruling, we affirm.
The evidence showed that the development of Ryman Farm began in 1993, at which time a Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Easements was filed in Whitfield County. The development was to be completed in several stages. Amendments to the declaration of covenants were filed on three occasions to extend to Phases II and III and IV of construction. The property which was to be developed as Phase IV was deeded to Kinard in 2003. The homeowners' association believed that Kinard's proposed development of Phase IV deviated from the declaration of covenants in certain respects. As a result, the homeowners' association brought the present complaint seeking equitable relief, breach of the declaration of covenants, and attorney fees. The trial court granted an interlocutory injunction to maintain the status quo while the legal issues were to be litigated.
"`The purpose for granting interlocutory injunctions is to preserve the status quo, as well as balance the conveniences of the parties, pending a final adjudication of the case.'" Atlanta Dwellings v. Wright, 272 Ga. 231, 233, 527 S.E.2d 854 (2000). The trial court has broad discretion under OCGA § 9-5-8 in deciding whether to grant a request for an interlocutory injunction. West v. Koufman, 259 Ga. 505, 384 S.E.2d 664 (1989).
In balancing the equities the trial court determined that the proposed development of Phase IV will diminish the value of other properties in Ryman Farm; that the homeowners' association will suffer immediate and irreparable injury unless Kinard is temporarily enjoined from implementing his proposed plan; and that the denial of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. Wade
...quo, as well as balance the conveniences of the parties, pending a final adjudication of the case." Kinard v. Ryman Farm Homeowners' Assn. , 278 Ga. 149, 149, 598 S.E.2d 479 (2004) (citation and punctuation omitted). When deciding whether to issue an interlocutory injunction, a trial court ......
-
Wood v. Wade
... ... Kinard v. Ryman Farm Homeowners' Assn. , 278 Ga ... 149, 149 (598 S.E.2d ... ...
-
Bishop v. Patton
...court's reach to satisfy an eventual judgment, thereby leaving the plaintiff “practically remediless.” Kinard v. Ryman Farm Homeowners' Assn., 278 Ga. 149, 149, 598 S.E.2d 479 (2004). Relying on Dortic v. Dugas, 52 Ga. 231 (1874), the defendants argue that an interlocutory injunction is not......
-
Green v. Waddleton
...by the trial court, including the parties' stipulation to certain facts, is absent from the record. 7. Kinard v. Ryman Farm Homeowners' Assn., 278 Ga. 149, 598 S.E.2d 479 (2004) (citation and punctuation omitted); see West v. Koufman, 259 Ga. 505, 384 S.E.2d 664 (1989); MARTA v. Wallace, 24......