National Hills Exch. LLC v. Thompson

The trial court properly issued a TRO ordering that a back entrance to a shopping center be opened instanter, as the plain meaning of a 2004 easement was clear and unambiguous and gave the plaintiffs access to the shopping center traffic light through all existing access points.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Donald Thompson and Windsor Jewelers, LLC “Windsor” filed a petition for a restraining order against National Hills, LLC, then the owner of a shopping center opposite the Augusta National Golf Club. Windsor sought to enjoin National Hills’ closure of the back entrance of the shopping center contrary to a 2004 easement which it retained upon selling its interest in the shopping center but continuing business operations upon an out-parcel thereof. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered that the current owner of the shopping center and its parent company, NHEP, LLC and 2701 Partners, LLC, respectively, be joined in the case as defendants.1 Further, the trial court granted Windsor a temporary restraining order not to expire in 30 days which required that the back entrance to the shopping center be opened instanter and directed that no appeal should act as a supersedeas.

National Hills, LLC, NHEP, LLC, and 2701 Partners, LLC “National Hills” filed an application for discretionary appeal, which application this Court granted pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35 j, finding that the trial court’s order extending a temporary restraining order beyond 30 days, in effect, granted a directly appealable preliminary injunction. OCGA § 9-11-65 b a temporary restraining order “shall expire by its terms within such time after entry, not to exceed 30 days, as the court fixes. . . .” emphasis supplied; see also Matrix Financial Svcs. v. Dean, 288 Ga. App. 666, n. 1 655 SE2d 290 2007 trial court order indefinitely extending a temporary restraining order “is the equivalent of a judgment granting an interlocutory injunction and is directly appealable”. National Hills appeals, contending that the trial court erred in construing the easement at issue beyond its scope “in violation of established principles of Georgia law.” Finding that the plain meaning of the 2004 easement is clear and unambiguous, we affirm.

National Hills Exch. LLC v. Thompson

The trial court properly issued a TRO ordering that a back entrance to a shopping center be opened instanter, as the plain meaning of a 2004 easement was clear and unambiguous and gave the plaintiffs access to the shopping center traffic light through all existing access points.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report