Providence Const. Co. v. Bauer
Decision Date | 17 November 1997 |
Docket Number | No. A97A1630,A97A1630 |
Citation | 229 Ga.App. 679,494 S.E.2d 527 |
Parties | , 97 FCDR 4328 PROVIDENCE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. BAUER. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ronald S. Leventhal, pro se.
Talley & Darden, David P. Darden, Marietta, David T. Markle, Atlanta, for appellee.
This case presents the Court its first opportunity to apply the provisions of OCGA § 9-11-11.1. This 1996 law, sometimes referred to as an "anti-SLAPP" statute, is designed to prevent "Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation." See Kent & Isenberg, "Georgia's New Anti-SLAPP Statute," Ga.Bar J., (June 1997), p. 26.
Providence Construction Company brought this suit against Dave Bauer and other residents of Cumberland Ridge, a Cobb County subdivision developed by Providence. Providence is represented in court by its president, who is not a member of the State Bar of Georgia, but the appeal was docketed on April 8, 1997, before the rule in Eckles v. Atlanta Tech. Group, 267 Ga. 801, 806(2), 485 S.E.2d 22 (1997), became effective.
As far as defendants are concerned, only Bauer remains as a party. The developer sought to enjoin the residents from actively opposing its efforts to rezone a parcel of property adjoining the subdivision. Providence also sought money damages on its claim that Bauer and other residents breached contractual duties and tortiously interfered with Providence's contractual relations by circulating petitions opposing rezoning, writing letters to county officials and speaking out before the Cobb County Planning Commission. After an expedited hearing held pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-11.1(d), the court found Providence's suit to be an improper attempt to chill Bauer's free speech and petition rights and dismissed the complaint.
1. In enacting the anti-SLAPP statute, the legislature declared, OCGA § 9-11-11.1(a).
To prevent such abusive litigation, the legislature imposed several procedural safeguards. Any complaint arising from an act "which could reasonably be construed as an act in furtherance of" a defendant's free speech or petition rights must be accompanied by a verification, based on belief formed after reasonable inquiry, that the suit is well grounded in fact and law or represents a good-faith argument for the extension of existing law. OCGA § 9-11-11.1(b). The plaintiff and her counsel must also verify the act forming the basis of the suit is not a "privileged communication" under OCGA § 51-5-7, and that the suit is not filed "for any improper purpose such as to suppress a person's ... right of free speech or right to petition government...." OCGA § 9-11-11.1(b). If the defendant files a motion to dismiss, the trial court must hold a hearing on the motion within 30 days of its service, if possible. OCGA § 9-11-11.1(d).
Bauer filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that the activities of which Providence complained were privileged as "[s]tatements made in good faith as part of an act in furtherance of the right of free speech or the right to petition government for a redress of grievances under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Georgia in connection with an issue of public interest or concern...." OCGA § 51-5-7(4). Such statements are defined in OCGA § 9-11-11.1(c) to include written and oral statements and petitions made to legislative or executive bodies regarding an issue being reviewed by the body. As the trial court construed the statute, opposing a rezoning application by collecting signatures for a petition, writing letters to government officials, and speaking out at an official hearing clearly fall within the category of privileged activities.
Providence defends its suit against Bauer as valid because his actions violated a restrictive covenant between residents of Cumberland Ridge and Providence which runs with the land and binds subsequent purchasers such as Bauer whose deeds reflect they are subject to the restrictive covenant. See generally OCGA §§ 44-5-60; 44-5-39. See also Rosen v. Wolff, 152 Ga. 578, 583, 110 S.E. 877 (1922) ( ); Lowry v. Norris Lake Shores Dev. Corp., 231 Ga. 549, 551, 203 S.E.2d 171 (1974) ( ).
The covenant states: This restrictive covenant is unenforceable as against public policy.
Porubiansky v. Emory Univ., 156 Ga.App. 602, 603, 275 S.E.2d 163 (1980), aff'd, 248 Ga. 391, 282 S.E.2d 903 (1981). "A contract which is against the policy of the law cannot be enforced." OCGA § 13-8-2(a).
In OCGA § 9-11-11.1(a), the General...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg
...Rules of Civil Procedure and does not apply in this case. Section 9-11-11.1 is certainly procedural. See Providence Construction Co. v. Bauer, 229 Ga.App. 679, 494 S.E.2d 527 (1997) (describing anti-SLAPP statute's "several procedural safeguards"). Further, it also applies a heightened plea......
-
Metzler v. Rowell
...and provides for a motion to dismiss and hearing on this issue. OCGA § 9-11-11.1(b). See generally Providence Constr. Co. v. Bauer, 229 Ga.App. 679, 680(1), 494 S.E.2d 527 (1997) (full concurrence as to Division 1). Even if a verification is filed with the complaint, the trial court may nev......
-
Airtran Airlines, Inc. v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co.
...an "anti-SLAPP" statute "designed to prevent `Strategic Litigation Against Public participation.'" Providence Construction Company v. Bauer, 229 Ga.App. 679, 494 S.E.2d 527 (1997). The relevant Code section For any claim asserted against a person or entity arising from an act by that person......
-
Langley v. MP Spring Lake, LLC.
...curiam) (punctuation omitted); accord Camp v. Aetna Ins. Co. , 170 Ga. 46, 50, 152 S.E. 41 (1930) ; Providence Const. Co. v. Bauer , 229 Ga. App. 679, 681 (1), 494 S.E.2d 527 (1997).21 See OCGA § 13-8-2 (a) (1)-(5) ("Contracts deemed contrary to public policy include but are not limited to:......
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...initial approval power over the contract." Id., 495 S.E.2d at 8-9. Yet another case of the period, Providence Construction Co. v. Bauer, 229 Ga. App. 679, 494 S.E.2d 527 (1997), involved not a county contract, but rather deed covenants under which subdivision residents agreed not to oppose ......
-
Touch and Concern Is Dead, Long Live the Doctrine
...N.W.2d 315 (1996); Jeffrey Lake Dev., Inc. v. Central Neb. Pub. Power and Irrigation Dist., 5 Neb. App. 974, 568 N.W.2d 585 (1997). 105. 494 S.E.2d 527 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997), cert. denied, Leventhal v. Bauer, 119 S. Ct. 799 (1999). 106. Id. at 529. 107. See id. at 528, 530. The "anti-SLAPP" s......
-
A Constitutional Counterpunch to Georgia's Anti-slapp Statute
...to rezone a parcel of land for development and concerned residents of the affected neighborhood"); Providence Constr. Co. v. Bauer, 229 Ga. App. 679, 679, 494 S.E.2d 527, 528 (1997) ("The developer sought to enjoin the residents from actively opposing its efforts to rezone a parcel of prope......