PULTE HOME COMPANY, LLC v. JUANITA M. AYCOCK LIVING TRUST, A21A0640

Background

1962 Holly Hills Estates plat expressly dedicated the subdivision roads, including Daffodil Drive, to public use; the plat was recorded.
Daffodil Drive: southern portion is paved, maintained, and used as a public road; a 70-foot segment north of the Aycock(s)’ lot is unpaved, unused by the county, and partly occupied by the Aycocks’ driveway.
The Aycocks performed landscaping/maintenance on the unpaved segment after a county employee indicated the county would not assist with drainage (the trust offered this to show reliance, not the truth of the statement).
In 2019 Cobb County issued land-disturbance and water-line permits to Pulte to improve the unpaved segment to access adjacent lots; the Aycock Living Trust sued seeking injunctions, asserting the county had abandoned that portion of the easement such that the trust held title.
The trial court granted a temporary injunction, finding the trust had a cognizable abandonment claim under OCGA § 44-9-6; Cobb County and Pulte appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cobb County abandoned the unpaved portion of Daffodil Drive under OCGA § 44-9-6	Aycock Trust: county’s long nonuse plus county employee’s statements and the Trust’s maintenance show abandonment, so fee passed to abutting owner	County/Pulte: Daffodil Drive was expressly dedicated and accepted; mere nonuse is insufficient, statutory abandonment procedures (OCGA § 32-7-1 et seq.) were not followed; employee statements are hearsay for truth	No abandonment. Undisputed evidence shows County retained an easement; nonuse alone does not establish abandonment and statutory abandonment procedures were not followed
Whether partial use/maintenance of a dedicated street constitutes acceptance of the entire express dedication	Aycock Trust: partial use suggests the County only accepted part and effectively abandoned the unused portion	County/Pulte: where a landowner expressly defines the dedicated strip in a recorded plat, public authorities’ recognition (e.g., paving/maintenance of part) can imply acceptance of the whole	Acceptance of part of an expressly dedicated street can evidence acceptance of the entire dedication; County accepted the dedication by its acts
Whether a temporary injunction preventing Pulte’s permitted work was appropriate	Aycock Trust: likely to prevail on the merits and would suffer irreparable harm absent injunction	County/Pulte: they have a legal right to permit and perform work pursuant to County-issued permits; Trust lacks likelihood of success	Temporary injunction reversed — Trust lacked likelihood of success and could not show the legal injury necessary to sustain injunction

Key Cases Cited

Jergens v. Stanley, 247 Ga. 543 (Ga. 1981) (dedication requires owner intent and public acceptance)
Hobbs v. Ware County, 247 Ga. 385 (Ga. 1981) (partial public improvements can constitute acceptance of an express dedication)
Harbuck v. Houston County, 284 Ga. 4 (Ga. 2008) (continuation of a dedicated street remains subject to county acceptance despite limited maintenance)
Wiggins v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 245 Ga. 526 (Ga. 1980) (dedication may convey an easement rather than fee)
Northpark Assoc. No. 2 v. Homart Dev. Co., 262 Ga. 138 (Ga. 1992) (roads established by dedication without express fee grant yield easements)
Duffy Street S. R. O. v. Mobley, 266 Ga. 849 (Ga. 1996) (no presumption of abandonment from nonuse under 20 years)
Tietjen v. Meldrim, 169 Ga. 678 (Ga. 1930) (abandonment requires clear, unequivocal, decisive acts showing intent)
SRB Investment Svcs. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 289 Ga. 1 (Ga. 2011) (factors governing interlocutory injunctions)
Oconee Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Brown, 349 Ga. App. 54 (Ga. App. 2019) (reversal where enjoined party had a legal right to act)
Sorrow v. 380 Properties, 354 Ga. App. 118 (Ga. App. 2020) (addressing limits on partial abandonment of express easements; treated as contrasting authority)