WS CE RESORT OWNER, LLC v. THOMAS M. HOLLAND
A21A0329
| Ga. Ct. App. | Jul 7, 2021Background
- Chateau Elan developer (Fountainhead) planned a resort community with three golf courses; The Manor Homes subdivision bordered the Par 3 Course, and plats/marketing materials showed the golf course adjacent to those lots.
- Buyers (McCarthy; Hollands) purchased lots in 1996, paid $15,000 "site premiums" for proximity/view of the Par 3 Course, and testified they relied on marketing/representations that the community included the Par 3 golf course.
- Fountainhead transferred the Par 3 Course to Chateau Elan Resorts and later to CE Owner, which operated the course at a loss and sought rezoning to develop the course for residences.
- Plaintiffs sued for a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction (claiming an implied easement restricting use of the Par 3 Course to golf) and sought attorney fees; trial court denied CE Owner’s summary judgment, granted Plaintiffs’ summary judgment and injunction, and awarded attorney fees.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed that an implied easement existed and that an injunction was proper, but reversed the summary judgment award of attorney fees (finding procedural and substantive errors as to fee awards).
- The panel included a partly dissenting opinion arguing genuine factual disputes (notably the surveyor’s affidavit) made summary judgment inappropriate on the easement issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs acquired an implied easement in the Par 3 Course (common-grantor/plat + premium method) | Purchases were made pursuant to a recorded plat showing the Par 3 Course and buyers paid site premiums for golf-course lots, so an irrevocable easement was implied | Plat and related instruments did not designate the golf course as part of the subdivision; factual dispute exists (surveyor affidavit) | Affirmed: implied easement exists under the common-grantor method (plat depicted course; site premiums paid) |
| Whether an implied easement could alternatively be established from oral assurances | Developer’s marketing and agent representations induced reliance to purchase lots as part of a golf community | CE Owner disputed sufficiency and relevance; focused on plat-based claim | Court found common-grantor method dispositive and unnecessary to reach oral-assurance theory, but noted oral assurances supported the context |
| Whether the trial court’s injunction/declaratory relief was sufficiently specific and did not improperly compel action | The order reasonably identified the Par 3 Course (location, adjacent subdivision) and declared Plaintiffs’ easement rights; injunction simply enforces those rights | CE Owner argued the order failed OCGA § 9-11-65 specificity requirements and improperly compelled CE Owner to act | Affirmed: order sufficiently described property and acts restrained; practical effect was declarative of rights, not an impermissible compelled act |
| Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees (OCGA § 13-6-11 and § 9-15-14(b)) as a matter of summary judgment | Plaintiffs pleaded fees under § 13-6-11; trial court awarded fees on summary judgment and also under § 9-15-14(b) | CE Owner argued fees under § 13-6-11 require jury factfinding and § 9-15-14(b) fees require notice before sua sponte consideration | Reversed: trial court erred to grant summary judgment on § 13-6-11 fees (jury issue) and erred to award § 9-15-14(b) fees without providing required notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Forsyth County v. Martin, 279 Ga. 215 (Ga. 2005) (homeowners who purchased pursuant to a plat showing a lake and paid premium acquired an irrevocable easement in the lake)
- Peck v. Lanier Golf Club, Inc., 315 Ga. App. 176 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (outlining common-grantor / oral-assurance methods for implying recreational easements)
- Kay v. W. B. Anderson Feed & Poultry Co., Inc., 278 Ga. App. 674 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) (even a vague description may suffice if extrinsic evidence permits precise identification)
- Caldwell v. Church, 341 Ga. App. 852 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017) (attorney-fee entitlement under OCGA § 13-6-11 involves questions for the factfinder; summary judgment on such fees is improper)
- Covington Square Assoc., LLC v. Ingles Markets, Inc., 287 Ga. 445 (Ga. 2010) (trial court erred by granting summary judgment on § 13-6-11 fees because fee liability and amount are jury questions)
- Kace Investments, L. P. v. Hull, 263 Ga. App. 296 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (injunctions must describe property and acts restrained with reasonable detail per OCGA § 9-11-65)
- Bearden v. Georgia Power Co., 262 Ga. App. 550 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (injunction need not anticipate every development; must be reasonably detailed)
- Eardley v. McGreevy, 279 Ga. 562 (Ga. 2005) (plat-based easement failed where plat was unrecorded or not referenced in deed)