Haarhoff v. Jefferson at Perimeter, L.P.
315 Ga. App. 271
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Jefferson acquired the 20.14-acre property in March 2007, including an apartment complex and detention ponds.
- The ponds are upstream of Haarhoff and Heath, whose homes are allegedly affected by storm water runoff and sanitary sewer backups.
- Plaintiffs allege Jefferson’s failure to inspect/maintain the ponds caused increased runoff onto their properties.
- Jefferson and its expert testified detention ponds require regular maintenance; Jefferson did not perform pond inspections.
- Houbs: trial court granted Heath summary judgment and Haarhoff partial summary judgment on attorney fees.
- Appellants appeal the grant of summary judgment on Heath’s nuisance claims and the partial summary on attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ante litem notice required before suit? | Heath says notice required by OCGA § 41-1-5(b). | Jefferson argues notice applies only if defendant passive; no increase in nuisance proven. | No ante litem notice needed; Jefferson did not increase nuisance. |
| Attorney fees entitlement under OCGA 13-6-11? | Haarhoff seeks fees for bad faith, stubborn litigiousness, or unnecessary trouble. | Jefferson contends no genuine triable issue on bad faith; fees should be denied. | Issue for jury; trial court erred in granting summary judgment on fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Savannah Elec. & Power Co. v. Horton, 44 Ga.App. 578 (1932) (ante litem notice prerequisite for nuisance claims)
- Macko v. City of Lawrenceville, 231 Ga.App. 671 (1998) (notice limitations; nuisance/alteration of property)
- Hofrichter/Stiakakis v. City of Atlanta, 291 Ga.App. 883 (2008) (attorney fees and bad faith analysis in nuisance context)
- Tyler v. Lincoln, 272 Ga. 118 (2000) (bad faith/factor for attorney fees; jury question)
- City of Atlanta v. Hofrichter, ? (?) (cited for fee principles in context of bad faith)