Lowry v. Norris Lake Shores, 28275.

• Decision Date: 07 January 1974
• Docket Number: 28275.
• Citation: 231 Ga. 547,203 S.E.2d 169
• Parties: LOWRY et al. v. NORRIS LAKE SHORES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

231 Ga. 547

203 S.E.2d 169

LOWRY et al. v. NORRIS LAKE SHORES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

28275.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Submitted September 14, 1973.

Decided January 7, 1974.

Herbert T. Jenkins, Jr., Fred W. Minter, for appellants.

Webb, Fowler & Tanner, Robert Duncan, for appellee.

INGRAM, Justice.

This appeal is from the grant of a summary judgment by the Superior Court of Gwinnett County in an equitable action brought by the appellants seeking injunctive relief against the appellee.

The case began with a complaint filed by appellant Frank Lowry alleging that he and others purchased lots at Norris Lake Community, a residential development located in Gwinnett and DeKalb Counties, under deeds which contractually obligated the appellee to furnish water to appellants at a fixed rate of ten dollars per quarter year in advance on a permanent basis. The complaint further alleged that despite this obligation the appellee had advised all their water customers at Norris Lake to purchase water meters by a certain date or have their water cut off. Other lot owners intervened in the case, and the appellants sought to enjoin the appellee from shutting off or threatening to shut off their water or the water of any member of the Norris Lake Property Owners Association.

The appellee filed a motion for summary judgment in the case and after a hearing, this was granted by the trial court. The motion for summary judgment was based upon the ground that the sole issue in the case was whether under the deeds, by which appellants held title, the appellee could lawfully "install water meters and charge a fee for a water meter." The motion asserted that this issue could only be determined by the court's construction of the deeds in question. During the proceedings in the trial court appellants attempted to show certain parol representations were made by appellee's salesmen at the time their lots were purchased to the effect that water could be purchased from appellee at a cost of only ten dollars a quarter in perpetuity.

The trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the appellee recites: "The deeds under which the property owners hold their lots have been set out in evidence in this case. There is no covenant whatsoever in said deeds placing any obligation at all upon defendants to furnish any water to any person at any price. The fact that defendants have in the past furnished water to plaintiffs did not obligate them to continue to do so. There is nothing in the instruments under which plaintiffs hold title to obligate defendants to furnish water at any price or to maintain a minimum price in the future. Defendants, being under no obligation to furnish water to plaintiffs, are...