This case arises from a nuisance claim related to storm water runoff filed by property owners Uwe E. Haarhoff and William Heath, Jr., collectively “the Appellants” against Jefferson at Perimeter, L. P. “Jefferson”,1 which owns an adjacent apartment complex. The trial court granted Jefferson’s motion for summary judgment against Heath and motion for partial summary judgment against Haarhoff. The Appellants contend that the trial court erred by granting Jefferson’s motions because 1 Heath was not required to give ante litem notice to Jefferson; and 2 the issue of attorney fees is for the jury. For the reasons the follow, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment as to Heath’s claims and reverse the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment as to Haarhoff’s claim for attorney fees. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.2 So viewed, the evidence shows that in March 2007, Jefferson acquired the 20.14 acre property at issue, upon which was an apartment complex and drainage system for the property, including three detention ponds. The property was upstream of the homes of the Appellants, who claim in their complaint that Jefferson’s failure to maintain the three detention ponds causes regular sanitary sewer backups and storm water flooding of their property. The Appellants provided the expert testimony of Elvin Aycock, P.E., who concluded that Jefferson’s failure to clear trash and debris from the detention ponds on the property increased the amounts of storm water runoff from the apartment complex onto Haarhoff’s and Heath’s properties. Jefferson’s representatives deposed that they did not perform inspections or maintenance of the detention ponds. In addition to Aycock’s testimony, Jefferson’s own expert deposed that the type of detention ponds on the property normally require maintenance, including the removal of trash and other debris. Jefferson filed a motion for summary judgment as to Heath’s claims and a motion for partial summary judgment as to Haarhoff’s claim for attorney fees, which motions the trial court granted after a hearing on the matters. This appeal followed.
1. Heath argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Jefferson because he was required to give ante litem notice to Jefferson prior to filing the lawsuit. We disagree.
