Marino v. Clary Lakes Homeowners Ass'n
322 Ga. App. 839
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Association seeks damages and injunctive relief to enforce Garage Use Covenant in Amended Declaration affecting Clary Lakes lot owners Marinos.
- Original Declaration (1987) allowed garages for at least two cars; no storage restriction or garage-use requirement.
- Amendments (1998, 2003) amended declaration and bylaws; Amended Declaration submitted Clary Lakes to POA Act.
- Garage Use Covenant (Section 11(i)) requires vehicles parked in garages; prohibits regular storage that blocks garage use; authorizes variance.
- Marinos purchased in 1994; used garage for storage and parked cars in driveway under Original Declaration; refused consent to Amended Declaration and never voted for it.
- Court denied Marinos’ summary-judgment defenses; trial court held Covenant enforceable and awarded damages, injunctive relief, and fees; appellate court reverses in part and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two-year statute of limitations applies to Covenant enforcement. | Marinos’ violation began in 2003; suit filed 2011; barred. | Violation ongoing since 2003; each act accrues; etc. | Two-year accrual applies; each non-garage parking act is a new breach; suit timely. |
| Whether Garage Use Covenant required written consent or two-thirds vote to be enforceable. | Covenant exempt from consent and from two-thirds vote due to POA adoption. | Covenant imposing greater restriction requires written consent or two-thirds approval. | Garage Use Covenant unenforceable; required both written consent or two-thirds vote; not obtained. |
| Whether promissory estoppel precluded the Marinos from challenging enforceability. | Marinos’ conduct may bind them to covenant. | No agreement to enforce Garage Use Covenant; no reliance detriment shown. | Marinos not estopped; could challenge enforceability. |
| Whether the denial of a permanent variance was arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith. | denial supported by reasonable discretionary rationale. | Issue moot because Covenant unenforceable anyway. | Moot given Covenant unenforceable; no need to address variance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (Ga. 1991) (summary judgment standards; proof of no genuine issues of material fact)
- Black Island Homeowners Assn. v. Marra, 263 Ga. App. 559 (Ga. App. 2003) (accrual for covenant violations; each act a new breach)
- Charter Club on the River Home Owners Assn. v. Walker, 301 Ga. App. 898 (Ga. App. 2009) (premised on OCGA 44-5-60 (d)(4) without POA context)
- Geico General Ins. Co. v. Hosp. Auth. of Clarke County, 319 Ga. App. 741 (Ga. App. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles; harmony of statutes)
- Aimwell, Inc. v. McLendon Enterprises, 318 Ga. App. 394 (Ga. App. 2012) (statutory construction; pari materia; harmonization)
- Canterbury Forest Assn. v. Collins, 243 Ga. App. 425 (Ga. App. 2000) (restrictive covenants; construction in grantee’s favor)