CITY OF STONE MOUNTAIN v. BLACK Et Al.
340 Ga. App. 630
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- William and Pamela Black sued the City of Stone Mountain alleging the city's failure to maintain sewer/storm drainage caused repetitive flooding of their house.
- Plaintiffs sought damages including lost rental value during the flooding period, foundation repair costs, and diminution in fair market value from stigma after repairs.
- The city moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the stigma (diminution-in-value) damages claim.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; the city obtained interlocutory appellate review on the stigma-damages issue.
- The core dispute: whether stigma/diminution-in-value damages are available in abatable nuisance cases and whether they duplicate lost rental-value damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stigma (diminution in fair market value) damages are recoverable for an abatable nuisance | Blacks: stigma damages are available when repairs do not fully restore pre-damage value | City: diminution-in-value is limited to permanent nuisances; abatable nuisance plaintiffs may recover only lost rental value plus actual repair costs | Court: Stigma damages can be recovered in abatable nuisance cases when repairs don’t fully restore value |
| Whether recovery of lost rental value and stigma damages constitutes impermissible double recovery | Blacks: lost rental value and stigma compensate different injuries (temporary use loss vs. enduring value loss) | City: awarding both would double recover for same injury | Court: They compensate different injuries and both may be awarded when appropriate |
| Whether precedent barred combined awards of repair costs and diminution in value | Blacks: Royal Capital allows diminution awards in addition to repair costs where value not fully restored | City: points to prior cases limiting recovery | Court: Royal Capital clarified no per se bar to combined awards; abatable-vs-permanent distinction not dispositive |
| Whether City of Warner Robins v. Holt compels dismissal here | City: Holt prohibits awarding both loss of rental value and loss of fair market value | Blacks: Holt only bars recovery for both abatable and permanent nuisance categories together; it did not address stigma | Court: Holt is distinguishable; it does not preclude stigma damages here |
Key Cases Cited
- Royal Capital Dev., LLC v. Maryland Cas. Co., 291 Ga. 262 (Supreme Court of Ga.) (diminution in value may be awarded in addition to repair costs when repairs do not fully restore pre-damage value)
- Toyo Tire North Am. Mfg. v. Davis, 299 Ga. 155 (Supreme Court of Ga.) (prohibits double recovery; distinguishes different injuries and measures of damages)
- City of Atlanta v. Broadnax, 285 Ga. App. 430 (Court of Appeals of Ga.) (abatable nuisance flooding case; earlier panel disallowed combined recovery to the extent inconsistent with Royal Capital)
- City of Warner Robins v. Holt, 220 Ga. App. 794 (Court of Appeals of Ga.) (addresses limits on recovering for both abatable and permanent nuisance theories; distinguishable here)
- Swift v. Broyles, 115 Ga. 885 (Supreme Court of Ga.) (early discussion distinguishing past discomfort/annoyance damages from diminution of rental value)
- De Castro v. Durrell, 295 Ga. App. 194 (Court of Appeals of Ga.) (summary judgment standard cited)