Nemchik v. Riggs, 300 Ga. 363

Background

George and Tennie Nemchik (through entities MPI and MCC) developed a subdivision called The Lanesborough that included a heavily wooded Lot 9 adjacent to property later owned by Tony Riggs.
MCC executed a Security Deed in favor of a lender on May 9, 2005 that referenced an unrecorded plat (dated April 25, 2005) which did not show an easement and expressly prohibited MCC from granting easements without the lender’s written consent.
A recorded subdivision plat (recorded June 6, 2005) showed an ingress-egress easement across Lot 9; MCC later executed easement deeds to MPI in August 2005 without the lender’s consent.
The lender foreclosed on the Security Deed in 2009, executed a Foreclosure Deed that referenced the recorded plat, and later conveyed Lot 9 to Riggs (2014); the foreclosure deed conveyed MCC’s interest and divested grantor’s post-security-deed rights.
In 2015 the Nemchiks began clearing trees and posting notices claiming an easement; Riggs sued for declaratory relief and injunctive relief and obtained a temporary restraining order and then an interlocutory injunction barring both sides from entering Lot 9 pending resolution.
The Nemchiks appealed the interlocutory injunction, arguing Riggs lacked a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and that the injunction’s harm to them outweighed harm to Riggs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Riggs)	Defendant's Argument (Nemchiks)	Held
Whether Riggs showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits	The recorded chain (foreclosure and subsequent deeds) extinguished any easement claimed by the Nemchiks; MCC’s attempted easements were ineffective because the Security Deed barred easements without lender consent	The Nemchiks asserted a valid easement shown on a recorded plat and by their actions asserting use of Lot 9	Court: Riggs likely to prevail; MCC’s attempted easements were ineffective (no lender consent) and foreclosure extinguished grantor’s easement rights
Whether irreparable injury favored granting an interlocutory injunction	Clearing trees and altering Lot 9 caused and threatened irreparable harm to Riggs’ property rights and development plans	The Nemchiks failed to show that being restrained from entering Lot 9 pending litigation would cause them comparable harm	Court: Harm to Riggs outweighed harm to Nemchiks; injunction appropriate to prevent further irreparable damage
Whether injunction properly preserved the status quo	Granting an injunction that barred both parties from Lot 9 preserves the property’s condition until title/easement issues are finally resolved	Nemchiks argued they needed access to assert their easement rights	Court: Enjoining both parties preserved the status quo and was equitable; not an abuse of discretion
Whether public interest disfavors the injunction	Riggs: public interest favors enforcement of secured transactions and title stability	Nemchiks: public interest in property use and development	Court: No public-interest objection sufficient to deny interlocutory relief

Key Cases Cited

SRB Investment Svcs. v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., 289 Ga. 1 (trial court’s interlocutory-injunction standard and appellate review deference)
Allgood Farm v. Johnson, 275 Ga. 297 (lender’s lack of consent renders subsequent easements ineffective against lender)
Rhodes v. Anchor Rode Condo. Homeowner’s Assn., 270 Ga. 139 (valid foreclosure divests grantor’s and those claiming through grantor’s rights subject to the security deed)
Gray Lumber Co. v. Lockridge, 135 Ga. 230 (interlocutory injunctions may enjoin both parties to preserve statu quo regarding land use)
Johnson v. Hall, 83 Ga. 281 (same: interlocutory injunctions to preserve land in statu quo until title resolved)