Pulte Home Co. v. Juanita M. Aycock Living Trust
| Decision Date | 25 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | A21A0640, A21A0641 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PULTE HOME COMPANY, LLC v. JUANITA M. AYCOCK LIVING TRUST. Cobb County v. Juanita M. Aycock Living Trust. |
James Alan Wilson Balli, Atlanta, for Appellant in A21A0640.
Debra Lynn Blair, Atlanta, Lauren Smith Bruce, Marietta, for Appellant in A21A0641.
Hylton B. Dupree Jr., Marietta, for Appellee.
These related appeals concern whether Cobb County has partially abandoned a public use easement in a road that it obtained through an express dedication in a subdivision plat recorded in the 1960s.
Finding a cognizable claim of abandonment under OCGA § 44-9-6, the trial court granted the Juanita M. Aycock Living Trust a temporary injunction to prevent Pulte Home Company, LLC from taking actions to develop an unpaved portion of that road pursuant to permits issued by the county. But as detailed below, the undisputed evidence shows that Cobb County still has an easement over the entire road, so it has a right to issue Pulte permits to perform work on the unpaved portion of the road and Pulte has a right to perform work pursuant to those permits. We therefore reverse the temporary injunction in both appeals.
The relevant facts are undisputed. In 1962, the then-owner of the land at issue recorded a plat for the Holly Hills Estates subdivision. That plat contains an express dedication of the roads reflected therein to public use, stating: "I, Robert H. Simpson, owner of the property shown and described hereon adopt this plan for subdivision and dedicate the roads to public use." The recorded plat also contains notations reflecting the approval of the plat by various county entities.
One of the roads reflected in the recorded plat is Daffodil Drive. In 1964, Charles B. Aycock bought a house and lot in the subdivision abutting Daffodil Drive. He later conveyed the property to himself and Juanita M. Aycock as joint tenants, and the two later conveyed the property to themselves in their capacities as trustees of the Juanita M. Aycock Living Trust.
The portion of Daffodil Drive south of the Aycocks's property is paved and has been maintained and used as a public road. The remaining 70-foot portion of Daffodil Drive is unpaved and the county has not maintained or used it as a public road. Instead, a portion of the Aycocks's driveway extends into this unused segment of road.
In 1964, the Aycocks asked the county to address an issue of regular flooding from drainage on Daffodil Drive that was damaging their driveway, and a representative of the Cobb County Commission inspected their property. Charles Aycock testified that the county representative acknowledged the problem but said to him: "I don't think the county will do anything about this, but why don't you just take your property and do whatever you want to with it, bring in dirt, fix up your driveway, and do whatever you want to." Referring to the unpaved portion of Daffodil Drive, the county representative told Charles Aycock, "they'll never build down below you because a man will be a damn fool to build on that property, it's so steep." These comments led Charles Aycock to believe that the county was not going to help them repair their driveway, and so the Aycocks engaged in landscaping, hardscaping, and maintenance on the unpaved portion of Daffodil Drive to address the problem.
Pulte currently owns two lots in an adjacent subdivision, and one of those lots abuts the Aycocks's property to the north. In 2019, Cobb County granted Pulte land disturbance and water line permits to improve the unpaved portion of Daffodil Drive to access its lots. After the Aycocks unsuccessfully objected to those permits, they filed this action on behalf of the trust. Asserting that they have vested title in the unpaved portion of Daffodil Drive because Cobb County has abandoned its interest in that portion of the road, the Aycocks sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief to require the county to suspend the permits and to prevent Pulte from "trespassing on [their] property" or moving forward with the development of the road. They also alleged that the county's actions amounted to an unlawful taking of their property without due process of law, and they sought attorney fees.
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the trust a temporary injunction. Pertinently, the trial court held that the trust had a cognizable claim that the county had abandoned its interest in that section of road under OCGA § 44-9-6, which provides that "[a]n easement may be lost by abandonment or forfeited by nonuse if the abandonment or nonuse continues for a term sufficient to raise the presumption of release or abandonment[,]" and she held that, in her discretion, an interlocutory injunction was appropriate under the factors set forth in SRB Investment Svcs. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. , 289 Ga. 1, 5 (3), 709 S.E.2d 267 (2011), which are set forth below.
Pulte and Cobb County filed these direct appeals, which are authorized under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (4) ().
SRB Investment Svcs. , 289 Ga. at 5 (3), 709 S.E.2d 267 (citation omitted).
We will not reverse the trial court's decision on appeal "unless the trial court made an error of law that contributed to the decision, there was no evidence on an element essential to relief, or the court manifestly abused its discretion." SRB Investment Svcs. , supra (citation and punctuation omitted). But where there is no meaningful conflict in the evidence, "the judge's discretion in granting or denying the interlocutory injunction is circumscribed by the applicable rules of law." Morgan County v. Gay , 352 Ga. App. 555, 572 (4), 834 S.E.2d 576 (2019) (citation omitted).
"A trial court's discretion to decide whether to grant an interlocutory injunction is abused, and may be reversed, when it is based on a misunderstanding or misapplication of the governing law," Lue v. Eady , 297 Ga. 321, 327 (2) (a), 773 S.E.2d 679 (2015), or where the law does not support recovery based on the evidence presented to the court. See TMX Finance Holdings v. Drummond Financial Svcs. , 300 Ga. 835, 837-839 (1), (2), (3), 797 S.E.2d 842 (2017). For example, we will reverse a grant of an interlocutory injunction where the trial court relied on an incorrect legal principle as the basis for the injunction. Holton , 292 Ga. at 870 (2), 742 S.E.2d 702. We will also reverse where there was undisputed evidence that the enjoined party had a legal right to act. Oconee Fed. S&L Assn. v. Brown , 349 Ga. App. 54, 60-61, 825 S.E.2d 456 (2019).
As detailed below, the trial court erred in granting the temporary injunction prohibiting Pulte from commencing work on the unpaved portion of Daffodil Drive, because the undisputed evidence shows that Cobb County has a property interest in the unpaved portion of road that allows it to permit Pulte to perform that work.
The undisputed evidence shows that Cobb County received rights to the public use of Daffodil Drive by dedication, the process by which Jergens v. Stanley , 247 Ga. 543, 544, 277 S.E.2d 651 (1981). Although the trust does not dispute that Cobb County accepted a dedication of Daffodil Drive for public use, for context we address below the evidence and authorities establishing that fact.
The requirement that the landowner intend to make the dedication has been met because the then-owner of the land expressly stated on the recorded subdivision plat that he "dedicate[d] the roads [shown on the plat] to public use," and the plat containing that language was recorded. See Harbuck v. Houston County , 284 Ga. 4, 6 (3), 662 S.E.2d 107 (2008) ; Hobbs v. Ware County , 247 Ga. 385 (1), 276 S.E.2d 575 (1981).
To continue reading
Request your trial