Polo Golf & Country Club Homeowners' Ass'n v. Rymer
294 Ga. 489
Ga.2014Background
- Polo Golf and Country Club HOA, the Rymers, and Forsyth County dispute who must repair subdivision stormwater facilities.
- The Polo Fields subdivision has about 1,000 lots; stormwater facilities under lots are not dedicated to the county; Polo does not own them.
- Covenants (1987) require homeowners to maintain structures, including stormwater facilities on their lots; Polo can sue, fine, or repair at homeowner expense for violations.
- Forsyth County enacted a 1996 stormwater ordinance and a 2004 addendum (4.2.2) mandating associations to maintain drainage facilities within developments.
- The addendum applies to new developments and redevelopments; Polo, developed in the 1980s, predates the addendum and is not a “new development,” so it arguably is not subject to 4.2.2.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the county; Polo and Rymers cross-moved; the cases were consolidated; the court denied Polo’s request for summary judgment against the Rymers and granted the county summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Polo is estopped from enforcing covenants against the Rymers | Rymers relied on Polo’s promises to repair and assented to Polo’s study/efforts | Polo argues no estoppel since no deception or enforceable promise beyond conditions exist | Genuine issue of material fact; jury could find promissory estoppel. |
| Whether the addendum applies to Polo | Addendum retroactively obligates Polo as part of Forsyth County rules | Addendum only applies to new developments/redevelopments; Polo pre-dates it | Addendum does not apply to Polo; retroactivity not invoked. |
| Whether the addendum violates contracts or is unconstitutional (prevented by retroactivity) | Addendum impairs contract obligations | Addendum valid for prospective application to new developments | Not decided on merits because addendum inapplicable to Polo. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ambrose v. Sheppard, 241 Ga. App. 835 (Ga. App. 2000) (reasonable reliance question for jury)
- Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 248 Ga. 114 (Ga. 1981) (promissory estoppel consideration through reliance)
- Folks, Inc. v. Dobbs, 181 Ga. App. 311 (Ga. App. 1986) (promissory estoppel concepts in contract reliance)
- McNeal Constr. Co. v. Wilson, 271 Ga. 540 (Ga. 1999) (statutory/retroactivity intent must be clear)
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (Ga. 2010) (summary judgment standard/appellate review)