Tag: easement

Subdivision Easements in Georgia

Posted by Jeff on

Georgia Law Regarding Subdivision Easements

Georgia law grants subdivision homeonwers easements regarding certain features identified on subdivision plats, including streets, parks, and lakes. Such designations on a plat conveys an intent by the original developer to grant an easement to all lot owners in a subdivision.

Tucker v. Brannen Lake East

The Georgia Court of Appeals looked at this issue in Tucker et al. v. Brannen Lake East, LLC, A23A1265 (January 29, 2024). In Tucker, the dispute involved use of a lake in a subdivision. A homeowner purchased a lot in the subdivision next to a lake. At the time of purchase, neither the deed to the buyer, the subdivision plat, nor the lot survey showed any restriction related to use of the lake. After purchase, the homeowner used the lake with no issues until the lake owner (another property owner) told the owner that he could not use the lake.

The lake owner claimed an earlier deed to the homeowner’s property contained what is called a “restrictive covenant.” A restrictive covenant is language in a deed in which the seller limits the purchaser’s future use of the property. Here, the lake owner claimed that an earlier deed restricted use of the lake.

Court Decided Homeowner Could Use Lake Despite Alleged Restrictive Covenant

The Court of Appeals confirmed that Georgia law has long recognized that when a developer conveys lots concerning a subdivision plat, the buyers may receive easements in certain features—mostly streets and parks—designated on the plat. Usually, identifying an easement on the subdivision plat is enough, absent contrary evidence in the plat or deed, to grant an easement in the features to lot owners who bought with reference to the plat. Examples are streets, parks, and lakes (which are treated similarly to parks). So if a subdivision plat shows a park, arguably, everyone in the subdivision has an easement to use the park.

The Court explained that:

These features share two things in common with the first being that there is simply a well settled understanding, reflected in more than a century of our decisions, that when these basic features are designated on a subdivision plat, there is ordinarily no reason to doubt that they are included as part of the unified plan for the subdivision and meant for the lot owners’ use. Second, and equally important, these are the sort of features for which designation or delineation on the plat alone can give reasonable certainty about the scope of the easement granted. Simply put, settled expectations rooted in more than a century of practice and the relative ease with which the scope of an easement in these features can be discerned support a strong presumption that designating these features on a subdivision plat conveys an intent to grant an easement to lot owners who buy with reference to the plat.

(citation and punctuation omitted).

The guiding principle in the case is that with regard to restrictive covenants, the “legal presumption is in favor of the free use of the property by its owner, and any doubt will be construed in favor of the owner.” The Court examined the actual restrictive covenant in the earlier deed and determined that the deed had contradictory language. Therefore,

the seemingly contradictory language between the October 21, 1993 deed and the Summary of Conditions and Restrictions as to the property subject to those conditions and restrictions cannot justify terminating Tucker and Marsh’s use of the lake—especially in light of the Brannen Lake subdivision plat explicitly referenced in their 2015 deed.

If you have any questions about subdivision easements or restrictive covenants, call us at 404-382-9994 to discuss.

Private Ways in Georgia Require Seven Years of Adverse Use

Posted by Jeff on

Private ways in Georgia are a type of easement that permit individuals to travel to and from their property and places of business. These ways cannot be wider than 20 feet, and the person claiming the private way is responsible for keeping it open and in good condition. This information is based on OCGA 44-9-40.

Thus, if you use a path through someone’s land for seven years straight, you may have the right to use it even if it’s not yours. This is called a private way by prescription, based on OCGA § 44-9-1. If the owner of the land obstructs your path, you can take them to court under OCGA § 44-9-59(a) to have the obstruction removed. However, if the owner gave you permission to use the path , you cannot acquire the right to use the path by prescription. The owner must be informed that you are making a hostile claim to their property and must be given actual notice of your adverse use. See Douglas v. Knox, 232 Ga. App. 551, 552 (2) (1998).

If your neighbor gives you permission to use their driveway, it’s important to remember that they have the right to revoke that permission at any time. In legal terms, this means that using your neighbor’s driveway with permission does not create a private way. A recent court case, Pineda v. Lewis (__ Ga. App. __, October 4, 2023, A23A0909), reaffirmed this principle.

To create an private way, you must give your neighbor notice that your use is adverse. This is true even if you make repairs to the driveway with your neighbor’s consent.

The bottom line is that traveling over a neighbor’s property with permission does not create a private way by prescription. If you have questions regarding your property rights concerning a neighbor, please call us at 404-382-9994 to discuss.

Easements and the Atlanta Beltline

Posted by Jeff on

A recent legal case regarding the Atlanta Beltline provides insightful reading for those interested in easements. In 2017, the Ansley Walk Condominium Association sued the Atlanta Development Authority, also known as Invest Atlanta, claiming ownership of three properties adjacent to the Beltline.

The case is complex, as the Norfolk Southern Railway Company initially operated the properties as a railway. However, in 2004, Norfolk relinquished its interests in the properties, which then became part of the Beltline. At the time of the transfer, Norfolk reserved an easement to cross over the properties.

In 2017, Norfolk signed an agreement to terminate its easement rights over the properties. However, the agreement was vague, so Norfolk signed a corrective agreement in 2020 to address the issue. Ansley Walk sued, alleging that when Norfolk relinquished its easement rights, Ansley Walk gained unrestricted ownership of the properties.

Ansley Walk claimed damages for inverse condemnation, trespass, attorneys’ fees, and litigation expenses. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, meaning they each sought a ruling in their favor without a trial. A summary judgment aims to expedite litigation and avoid the expense of a jury trial. However, a summary judgment can only be granted when there are “no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law” OCGA § 9-11-56(c); Pfeiffer v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827, 828 (2002).

After considering the arguments and the law, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Beltline and denied summary judgment to Ansley Walk. This means that, for now, the Beltline has won the case. However, Ansley Walk plans to appeal the decision and ask the Georgia Court of Appeals to review the trial court’s ruling.

In granting summary judgment, the trial court found that Ansley Walk failed to prove ownership of the three properties and that the 2020 corrective agreement properly canceled Norfolk’s easement rights. As a result, the Norfolk agreements about the easements did not transfer any property rights to Ansley Walk.

Although this case’s factual scenario is unlikely in most easement disputes, it is still an interesting example of how such disputes never go out of fashion. If you have a dispute regarding an easement, please contact us at 404-382-9994 to discuss your legal rights.

Subdivision Plats in Georgia

Posted by Jeff on
subdivision plat

This blog concerns subdivision plats. During the development of a subdivision, the developer submits a subdivision plat to the county for approval. Once approved, the developer records the subdivision plat on the county’s real estate records.

Alleys, Parks and Water Courses, Drains, Easements and Public Places

The subdivision plat includes not only the dimensions of the developed lots but also includes alleys, parks and water courses, drains, easements, and public places. As the developer sells the lots in the subdivision, the deeds transferring the lots to the new owners mention the subdivision plat. When the deeds reference the plat, the new owner gets an automatic easement to use the alleys, parks and water courses, drains, easements and public places marked on the subdivision plat.

Transfer of Public Space from Developer to the HOA

Once the developer finishes the subdivision, the developer usually transfers the alleys, parks and water courses, drains, easements and public places to the neighborhood’s homeowner’s association.

Dedication to Public by the Developer

Recording a subdivision plat showing areas set apart for public use creates not only a grant of an easement to the purchasers of the property, but also raises a presumption of intent to dedicate to the public. However, to complete a dedication of land to public use, the developer must not only offer to dedicate, but the county must accept the offer.

What Happens When a Public Space Isn’t Used

Sometimes, after the developer transfers the public area shown on the subdivision plat to the HOA, but the area is never used. And often, the HOA fails to pay taxes. When this happens, the county will have a tax sale and sell the property.

As mentioned above, each lot owner obtained a right to use the public area when they purchased their lot. The right to use the public area is considered an express grant and is an unalterable property right. The rationale is that the price of the lots included the use of the public areas. This principle is true even if the lot owners have never used the public space.

Call Us!

If you have questions about a subdivision plat or property rights, call us at 404-382-9994 to speak with an attorney.

Adverse Possession and Property Disputes Clarified

Posted by Jeff on

The Georgia Court of Appeals issued a decision that provides some guidance to the often-unintuitive law known as adverse possession. In Houston v. James, A20A1689 (February 3, 2021), three siblings involved in a property dispute sued each other over a 28-acre parcel owned by their deceased father. One sibling lived on and took care of the 28 acres for more than 20 years. But his father left most of the property to the other two siblings. The sibling left out argued he owned the 28 acres by adverse possession. He claimed he had had publicly, continuously, uninterruptedly, and peaceably possessed the property for more than 20 years. His two siblings disagreed, arguing that the possession was without a “claim of right.”

To be adverse, possession must be for more than 20 years and must be public, continuous, exclusive, uninterrupted, peaceable, accompanied by a claim of right, and not originate in fraud. OCGA § 44-5-161(a). Also, and quite importantly, the party adversely possessing must have a “claim of right” to the property.

A claim of right means the possessor claims the property as his own. Under Georgia law, a claim of right, or adverse possession, will be presumed from the assertion of dominion, particularly where the possessor has made valuable improvements. See Childs v. Sammons, 272 Ga. 737, 739 (2) (534 SE2d 409) (2000). Georgia courts have held that there does not need to be direct evidence of the state of mind of the possessor concerning claim of title; however, there must be evidence of some claim of title in the sense that the possessor claims the property as his own. Walker v. Sapelo Island Heritage Authority, 285 Ga. 194, 674 S.E.2d 925 (2009).

In Houston, the Court of Appeals concluded that a jury must decide whether the sibling claiming the property by adverse possession did so with a claim of right. If you have a property dispute concerning adverse possession, please call us at 404-382-9994 to discuss your options.