Barrett v. Britt
319 Ga. App. 118
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Barretts appeal a trial court partial summary judgment in favor of Britt(s) on breach of contract, waste, and conversion tied to the Property purchase.
- Barretts claim the Britts removed property, equipment and/or fixtures from the Property during and after the Britt-Hughes/Barrett transactions.
- The Britt Agreement contained a stipulation that ‘equipment having to do with the cattle operation still belongs to the seller’ but did not define or identify such equipment.
- Amendment #1 (July 26, 2006) and the Lease (August 25, 2006) pertain to Britts’ use/possession of the Property for up to three years and maintenance obligations.
- Barretts purchased the Property from Hughes in 2008, subject to the Lease and Britt Agreement; closing occurred with warranty deed; Britts still had 17 months under the lease at closing.
- Barretts discovered removal of listed items in July/August 2009 and contended these items were not cattle equipment; Britt(s) claimed removal was permitted under stipulations; trial court granted summary judgment on removal issue but denied on others; on appeal, issues focus on Stipulation 7 and interpretation of ‘equipment’ and its relation to the cattle operation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stipulation 7’s term equipment is ambiguous. | Barretts contend ambiguity requires jury interpretation. | Britts argue a definite meaning should be applied under contract terms. | Ambiguity exists; jury must determine intent. |
| Whether Barretts purchased subject to Britts’ rights under the Britt Agreement/Lease. | Barretts acquired property subject to all prior rights unless extinguished by sale. | Barretts took subject to Britt rights via Lease and stipulations. | Barretts bound by Lease and stipulations; rights preserved. |
| Whether the removed items constitute ‘equipment having to do with the cattle operation.’ | Removal of items did not pertain to cattle operation; not equipment. | Items were part of cattle operation; fall within Stipulation 7. | Issue of fact; not decided as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hargrove v. Jenkins, 192 Ga. App. 83 (Ga. App. 1989) (treats fixtures and personalty as controlled by contract.)
- Burpee v. Athens Production Credit Assn., 65 Ga. App. 102 (Ga. App. 1941) (contractual treatment of fixtures vs. personal property.)
- Turner Communications Corp. v. Hickcox, 161 Ga. App. 79 (Ga. App. 1982) (purchaser takes with notice of tenant's rights.)
- Woody’s Steaks v. Pastoria, 261 Ga. App. 815 (Ga. App. 2003) (ambiguity in contract; legal standards for construction.)
- Shell v. Tidewater Finance Co., 318 Ga. App. 69 (Ga. App. 2012) (affidavits and credibility issues not resolved on summary judgment.)
- Crossing Park Properties v. Archer Capital Fund, 311 Ga. App. 177 (Ga. App. 2011) (summary judgment; credibility and factual disputes remain.)