POLO GOLF and COUNTRY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. CUNARD
306 Ga. 788
Ga.2019Background
- Polo Golf and Country Club Homeowners Association (PGHOA) manages the Polo Fields subdivision in Forsyth County; stormwater facilities there (e.g., Wellington Dam) are failing and have caused property damage.
- Forsyth County’s 2004 Addendum (Section 4.2.2) made HOAs responsible for stormwater maintenance for new developments; in 2014 the county amended Section 4.2.2 to apply to "new or existing" developments.
- PGHOA sued two Forsyth County stormwater officials in their individual capacities seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the 2014 amendment: (1) unconstitutionally impairs PGHOA’s contractual rights under its Declaration with homeowners and (2) is retrospectively applied in violation of the Georgia Constitution.
- The trial court granted the officials’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding sovereign immunity barred the suit and that the county provision was constitutional; summary-judgment motions were denied as moot.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia held sovereign immunity did not bar PGHOA’s suit against officials in their individual capacities for prospective relief, but affirmed the judgment on the pleadings as to PGHOA’s Contracts Clause and Georgia impairment/retroactivity challenges and remanded for consideration of other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign immunity | Suit barred because officials acted on behalf of county; immunity deprives court of jurisdiction | Officials argued immunity barred suit against them | Reversed: sovereign immunity did not bar individual-capacity prospective-relief suit under Lathrop framework |
| Standing | No enforcement yet so no imminent injury; suit premature | County declared intent to enforce 2014 provision; officials would enforce it | PGHOA has standing because threat of enforcement is actual and imminent |
| Federal Contracts Clause | 2014 amendment impairs PGHOA’s contractual obligations with homeowners and substantially impairs contract | Amendment does not prevent PGHOA from using contractual remedies; not a substantial impairment; county may regulate for public purposes | Held no Contracts Clause violation: ordinance does not wholly preclude PGHOA from enforcing its Declaration or exercising remedies |
| Georgia impairment/retroactivity clause | 2014 amendment retroactively impairs vested contractual rights in the Declaration | No vested private right shown; PGHOA failed to prove injury to any vested right | Held no Georgia constitutional violation: PGHOA did not establish vested rights injuriously affected |
Key Cases Cited
- Polo Golf and Country Club Homeowners’ Assoc., Inc. v. Rymer, 294 Ga. 489 (2014) (previous appeal holding 2004 addendum applied to new/redevelopments, not existing developments)
- Lathrop v. Deal, 301 Ga. 408 (2017) (sovereign immunity generally does not bar suits for prospective relief against state officials in their individual capacities)
- McConnell v. Dept. of Labor, 302 Ga. 18 (2017) (sovereign immunity is a threshold jurisdictional issue)
- Women’s Surgical Ctr., LLC v. Berry, 302 Ga. 349 (2017) (standing for declaratory relief requires an actual and imminent injury)
- Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234 (1978) (framework for Contracts Clause analysis)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181 (1992) (Contracts Clause impairment analysis principles)
- Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170 (2013) (Georgia impairment/retroactivity analysis requires a vested private right)
- Jackson County Bd. of Health v. Fugett Constr., Inc., 270 Ga. 667 (1999) (to show state impairment, a vested right and injurious effect must be shown)