R. C. Acres, Inc. v. Cambridge Faire Properties, LLC
331 Ga. App. 762
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- R.C. Acres, Inc. (R.C.) sued to quiet title to a 60-foot deeded ingress/egress easement and sought damages for defendants’ interference after neighboring owners blocked access.
- The deed reserved that a "relocated easement" would be obtained between the parties; evidence indicated the easement may have been moved from its original location to "Woods Road" and later to a constructed "New Road."
- Case was tried in a bifurcated proceeding: first to locate the easement (original and final locations), second on interference/damages. Jury returned special verdicts marking original and final locations and awarded damages against some defendants.
- Trial court refused to let the jury decide intermediate relocations of the easement (ruling it could be relocated only once as a matter of law) and limited cross-examination based on an asserted restriction to the scope of direct under the new Georgia Evidence Code.
- R.C. appealed; cross-appellants (Mommies Properties and Bose) conditionally appealed denial of sanctions for alleged spoliation of a large exhibit board used at a 2009 TRO hearing that later went missing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury should be allowed to consider intermediate relocations of the easement | R.C.: evidence (deeds, surveys, testimony) showed multiple agreed relocations (to Woods Road, then New Road); jury should decide timing and liability for interference at intermediate locations | M.P.: easement was never relocated as to their property; court may limit to original and final locations | Reversed in part: trial court erred by removing intermediate relocation question; Georgia law allows repeated relocations by agreement and jury must decide intermediate locations relevant to interference/damages |
| Whether cross-examination is limited to scope of direct under Georgia Evidence Code | R.C.: Georgia Code permits broad cross-examination on any matter relevant to any issue; no federal-style scope-of-direct restriction | Defendants: cross-examination should be limited to scope of direct, as trial court applied | Court: trial court erred in restricting cross-examination; Georgia OCGA § 24-6-611(b) preserves broad cross-examination rights |
| Whether judgment adequately describes easement location and width for marketable title | R.C.: jury marks on plat and evidence (surveys, 60-ft width) permit a definite description; trial court should incorporate and scale evidence into judgment | Defendants: court can interpret verdict later; jury’s marks suffice | Vacated in part and remanded: trial court must amend judgment to conform to verdict and evidence and make easement description sufficiently certain (including width) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying sanctions for alleged spoliation of a demonstrative board | M.P./Bose: missing board used at TRO was material, contradictory to other surveys, and prejudiced their defense; dismissal warranted | R.C.: board was not an admitted exhibit and appeared favorable to R.C.; its loss was cumulative or not sufficiently harmful | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in denying sanctions (missing board was cumulative or primarily favorable to R.C.) |
Key Cases Cited
- Herren v. Pettengill, 273 Ga. 122 (Georgia Supreme Court) (majority rule: fixed-location easement cannot be relocated without consent)
- Calhoun GA NG, LLC v. Century Bank, 320 Ga. App. 472 (Georgia Court of Appeals) (parties may agree to relocate easement “from time to time”)
- Glisson v. Glisson, 265 Ga. 239 (Georgia Supreme Court) (special verdict must be adequately crafted to resolve issues)
- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. Rucker Constr., Inc., 285 Ga. App. 844 (Ga. Ct. App.) (trial court has discretion over special verdict form)
- CSX Transportation v. Levant, 200 Ga. App. 856 (Ga. Ct. App.) (appellate intervention when jury misled by verdict presentation)
- Kaufman Dev. Partners v. Eichenblatt, 324 Ga. App. 71 (Ga. Ct. App.) (judgment must conform to verdict and record)
- Norton Realty & Loan Co. v. Bd. of Ed. of Hall County, 129 Ga. App. 668 (Ga. Ct. App.) (plat incorporated in judgment can supply certain description details)
- Pinkerton & Laws v. Macro Constr., 226 Ga. App. 169 (Ga. Ct. App.) (vacating part of judgment and directing conformity to verdict)
- Allen v. Zion Baptist Church, 328 Ga. App. 208 (Ga. Ct. App.) (trial court’s wide discretion on spoliation; cumulative evidence may negate sanctions)
- Clayton County v. Austin-Powell, 321 Ga. App. 12 (Ga. Ct. App.) (spoliation presumption and standard of review)