Higginbotham v. Knight
312 Ga. App. 525
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Knight owns Lot 14 in Phase 2 of Toccoa Heights; Higginbothams own Lots 13, 18, and 19 in the same subdivision.
- A road easement agreement recorded in 2001 grants an easement along the subdivision's road system to each lot owner, but does not identify the exact paths.
- Plats show multiple pathways: three 18-foot roads, several 12-foot access drives, and many 10-foot drives; Knight claims a pathway across Lot 13 to Lot 14 is within the road system.
- A single route across Lots 19, 18, and boundary with Lot 13 connects to River Heights Road; a gate and cable were later placed by Higginbothams on portions of the path.
- Knight can access Lot 14 via a separate access drive that terminates within Lot 14 without crossing Higginbothams’ land, but seeks river access via the disputed pathway for renters.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment in Knight’s favor on declaratory relief; the Higginbothams and Knight cross-moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Knight has an easement across Higginbothams’ lots | Knight asserts the road system includes the Lot 13–Lot 14 pathway. | Higginbothams contend the pathway is not clearly part of the road system. | Ambiguity remains; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Whether the pathway across Lot 13 is part of the road system under the easement | Pathway is an access drive within the road system as depicted on plats. | Pathway’s status as part of the road system is unclear from the plats and legend. | Ambiguity persists; not resolvable at summary judgment. |
| Whether extrinsic evidence can resolve the ambiguity at summary judgment | Extrinsic evidence should establish intent and easement scope. | Extrinsic evidence is disputed and cannot conclusively resolve the ambiguity. | Extrinsic evidence cannot settle the issue at summary judgment. |
| Whether Knight is entitled to nuisance or injunctive relief if an easement exists | If an easement exists, Higginbothams’ interference may support nuisance or injunction claims. | Without a clear easement, nuisance claims fail as to the disputed pathway. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on nuisance/injunctive relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peaches Land Trust v. Lumpkin County School Bd., 286 Ga. App. 103 (Ga. App. 2007) (clear contract construction governs unless ambiguity remains)
- Department of Transportation v. Meadow Trace, Inc., 274 Ga. App. 267 (Ga. App. 2005) (contract interpretation at summary judgment; extrinsic evidence if ambiguous)
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (Ga. 2010) (de novo review of summary judgment; standard of review clarified)
- Hood v. Todd, 287 Ga. 164 (Ga. 2010) (same de novo review and evidentiary standard on summary judgment)
- Merlino v. City of Atlanta, 283 Ga. 186 (Ga. 2008) (evidence evaluated at summary judgment; light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Davis v. Overall, 301 Ga. App. 4 (Ga. App. 2009) (interference with easement rights may support nuisance claim)
- Rife v. Corbett, 264 Ga. 871 (Ga. 1995) (injunctive relief for easement interference)
- Greenwald v. Kersh, 265 Ga. App. 196 (Ga. App. 2004) (nuisance standards tied to easement interference in deference to rights)