Carolyn Allen Doxey v. Mark D. Crissey
A21A0203
| Ga. Ct. App. | Jun 15, 2021Background
- Carolyn Doxey owns Lots 27 (tennis court) and 28 (house) in Oakton; a ten-foot "bridle trail" easement recorded across the lots connects the neighborhood to Kennesaw Mountain National Park.
- The recorded easement was relocated in 1998 from the east side of Lot 28 to the east side of Lot 27; neither party challenged the relocation.
- Over decades neighborhood residents used the easement predominantly for walking/running (only one anecdotal 1970s horseback use was reported).
- Doxey closed/removed a gate and blocked access with fencing; ten residents sued for declaratory and injunctive relief.
- After a bench trial the trial court granted relief to the residents; this Court affirmed much of that ruling but vacated and remanded for proceedings to determine whether the change in use (bridle trail → pedestrian use) would cause unreasonable damage or interference and, if permitted, clarify who may use the easement.
- On remittitur the trial court issued a new order finding the change in use did not cause unreasonable damage and reaffirming easement access, but did so without holding any new hearing or receiving supplemental briefing; the Court of Appeals vacated that order and remanded again, holding that the trial court was required to provide further proceedings (hearing or at least opportunity for supplemental briefing) on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with this Court's remand directive by entering a new order without further proceedings | Doxey: trial court erred by failing to conduct further evidentiary proceedings or allow additional argument before issuing the new order | Residents: prior trial transcript and record sufficed; no new proceedings required | Court: vacated and remanded — remand "for proceedings"/"for further proceedings" requires at least a hearing or opportunity for supplemental briefing before ruling |
| Whether the shift from "bridle trail" to pedestrian/running use is permissible without servient owner's consent | Doxey: needed opportunity to develop evidence whether the change causes unreasonable damage/interference | Residents: long-standing pedestrian use for ~50 years; no evidence of harm | Court: change can be permissible under Parris Properties but the trial court must address (after further proceedings) whether the change causes unreasonable damage or interference |
| Whether trial courts must follow appellate directions on remand | Doxey: trial court ignored appellate direction by not holding further proceedings | Residents: claimed compliance based on the existing record | Court: reiterated trial courts must respect and carry out appellate directions in good faith; here the trial court failed to do so |
| What "for proceedings" / "for further proceedings" requires on remand | Doxey: read prior opinion as requiring further proceedings (hearing) | Residents: argued remand did not require additional process and would give Doxey a second bite | Court: announces rule — absent special direction, remand "for proceedings" or "for further proceedings" obligates the trial court to provide a proceeding (hearing or, at minimum, an opportunity for supplemental briefing); trial court retains discretion on the form of proceedings but must afford notice and opportunity to be heard |
Key Cases Cited
- Doxey v. Crissey, 355 Ga. App. 891 (2020) (prior appellate decision vacating trial judgment in part and remanding to assess impact of change in easement use and clarify access)
- Parris Properties, LLC v. Nichols, 305 Ga. App. 734 (2010) (change in manner/frequency/intensity of easement use is permissible absent unreasonable damage or interference)
- Memar v. Jebraeilli, 310 Ga. App. 173 (2011) (clarification remands do not necessarily require a hearing absent explicit direction)
- Eastgate Associates, Ltd. v. Piggly Wiggly S., Inc., 200 Ga. App. 872 (1991) (lower courts must follow appellate court directions in good faith)
- Razavi v. Merchant, 330 Ga. App. 407 (2014) (remand language can expressly allow the trial court discretion to hold a hearing for supplemental evidence)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 279 Ga. 302 (2005) (reversal without express direction generally returns case for new trial unless appellate direction specifies otherwise)