Canady v. Cumberland Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc.
340 Ga. App. 439
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Edward R. Canady purchased eight lots at tax sales in 2011–2012; the Cumberland Harbour Property Owners Association sued to recover unpaid HOA assessments on those lots through December 31, 2015.
- Trial court granted the Association summary judgment on liability, finding Canady holder of legal title and liable for dues; the court directed the Association to submit a proposed judgment and gave Canady 10 days to object.
- The Association submitted a proposed judgment for $66,362 (including $46,383.10 in assessments). Canady did not timely object; new counsel later requested an evidentiary hearing on damages, which the trial court denied.
- Canady moved to reconsider, arguing he should not be liable for assessments that accrued between his tax-deed purchases and the date he properly barred the Association’s right of redemption (OCGA § 48-4-45).
- The trial court denied reconsideration, reasoning Canady’s claim was speculative and not justiciable and that summary judgment was correct; Canady appealed but excluded key summary-judgment materials from the appellate record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Canady) | Defendant's Argument (Association) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability for HOA assessments accruing after tax-sale purchase but before redemption was barred | Canady: not liable for assessments accruing before he barred redemption because those assessments were tied to liens that were extinguished when redemption rights were foreclosed | Association: purchaser acquires an interest at tax sale sufficient to trigger liability for assessments accruing during redemption period | Court: Affirmed liability; purchaser is liable for assessments accruing after tax sale during redemption period (Croft and OCGA § 48-4-42) |
| Whether denial of hearing on damages was improper | Canady: requested evidentiary hearing to contest damages amount and liability for pre-foreclosure assessments | Association: no damages hearing required for liquidated amounts; proposed judgment process allowed only limited comment on amount | Court: No hearing required; summary-judgment process controls and proposed judgment procedure adequate |
| Justiciability of Canady’s contention that assessments during redemption should not be recoverable | Canady: his claim concerns recoverability if original owner had redeemed, so he disputes inclusion of those assessments | Association: issue was concrete because Association sought actual assessments from tax-sale date to judgment date | Court: Controversy was justiciable, but claim fails on the merits; denial of reconsideration proper |
| Adequacy of appellate record (exclusion of summary-judgment materials) | Canady: framed appeal as from denial of reconsideration and relied on motions below | Association: summary-judgment record supports liability | Court: Canady omitted critical summary-judgment materials from the appellate record; appellate review impaired, so affirm trial court judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Travelers Ins. Co., 230 Ga. App. 665 (review impossible when appellant omits critical summary-judgment evidence)
- Sands v. Lamar Properties, 159 Ga. App. 718 (party must present case in full on summary judgment)
- Redford v. Collier Heights Apartments, 298 Ga. App. 116 (where necessary proof is omitted on appeal, affirm trial court)
- Tanks v. The Greens Owners Assn., 281 Ga. App. 277 (omission of summary-judgment materials proves fatal to appellate review)
- Kappelmeier v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 306 Ga. App. 58 (appellate burden to show error by record)
- Croft v. Plantation Property Owners Assn., 276 Ga. App. 311 (tax-deed purchaser acquires interest sufficient to trigger liability for HOA assessments accruing during redemption period)
- Pinnacle Properties V, LLC v. Mainline Supply of Atlanta, 319 Ga. App. 94 (summary judgment must be affirmed if correct for any reason)
- Fulton County v. City of Atlanta, 299 Ga. 676 (justiciability is jurisdictional; courts must inquire into it)
- Mullin v. Roy, 287 Ga. 810 (justiciability requires a definite, concrete controversy)