Roland Well Drilling, Inc. v. Murawski, A89A1131

• Decision Date: 06 September 1989
• Docket Number: No. A89A1131,A89A1131
• Citation: 386 S.E.2d 872,193 Ga.App. 38
• Parties: ROLAND WELL DRILLING, INC. et al. v. MURAWSKI et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 872

386 S.E.2d 872

193 Ga.App. 38

ROLAND WELL DRILLING, INC. et al. v. MURAWSKI et al.

No. A89A1131.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Sept. 6, 1989.

Rehearings Denied Sept. 19, 1989 and Sept. 26, 1989.

Geneva Roland, pro se.

Ben Kirbo, Bainbridge, for appellants.

Rikard L. Bridges, Bainbridge, for appellees.

SOGNIER, Judge.

This is the second appearance of this action before the Court of Appeals. The facts are set forth in Murawski v. Roland Well Drilling, 188 Ga.App. 760, 374 S.E.2d 207 (1988), in which we addressed the validity and enforceability of the original contract and addendum (the contract) between Roland Well Drilling, Inc. (Roland Well) and G.W. Robinson and the enforceability of a subsequent trust deed. We held that the contract was valid and enforceable and the restrictive covenants imposed upon the grantees of the subdivision lots were enforceable against all properties for which Robinson appears in the claim of title, but that the terms of the trust deed executed by Roland Well and Decatur Consolidated Water Services, Inc. (Decatur Water) were enforceable only as to Roland Well and Decatur Water and not against the subdivision property owners. Following remittitur from this court, the trial court entered a final order on the property owners' claim for declaratory relief. Roland Well and Decatur Water filed this appeal from that order.

Appellants contend that the trial court, in holding that appellees, the property owners, "are no longer bound by any restriction on water sources arising out of the [contract]," erroneously interpreted the terms of this court's prior order. Upon review of the lower court's order, we find that it correctly concluded that because the contract was binding upon both appellants and appellees, as a result appellants were not entitled to impose any fees or charges in excess of those permitted by the contract even if authorized by the trust deed. The trial court, however, also found that the pump and some of the water mains installed by appellant Roland Well were not of the size specified in the contract, and concluded that because the water system was "not constructed or operated in strict accordance with the [contract]," appellees were no longer bound by the restrictions on obtaining alternative sources of water. We do not agree.

The contract provided in pertinent part: "For and in consideration of [appellant Roland Well] constructing said water supply system in strict accordance with the terms of this contract, Robinson agrees and binds himself that so long as said system is operating in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Public Health of the State of Georgia, Division of Georgia Water Quality Control, and the State Water Quality Control Board of the State of Georgia, he shall not, within 20 years from the date of this contract, sell any lot in said proposed subdivision without the deed to said lot containing the following restriction: 'Grantee [each appellee] herein acknowledges that the property described in this deed is presently being served with water by [appellant Roland Well] and agrees and binds himself that for a period of 20 years from the date of this deed he shall not construct a private water supply...