Mary Gwyn Bowen filed a verified complaint seeking an interlocutory injunction permitting her to erect a “For Sale” sign in the window of her residence in the Godley Park subdivision in Pooler. The Godley Park Homeowners Association, Inc. the “Association” answered and counterclaimed, seeking an injunction barring the erection of the sign under the restrictive covenants applicable to the subdivision the “Covenants”. Following a hearing, the trial court granted Bowen the interlocutory injunction she sought and denied the same to the Association. The Association appeals, contending that the trial court’s refusal to enjoin the erection of a “For Sale” on Bowen’s property was contrary to the express terms of a valid and governing restrictive covenant. We agree and reverse. “Restrictive covenants on real estate run with the title to the land and are specialized contracts that inure to the benefit of all property owners affected. Cit.” Rice v. Lost Mountain Homeowners Assn. , 269 Ga. App. 351, 354 3 604 SE2d 215 2004. “The construction, interpretation and legal effect of such a contract is an issue of law to which the appellate court applies the plain legal error standard of review.” Footnote and punctuation omitted. Crawford v. Dammann , 277 Ga. App. 442, 444 1 626 SE2d 632 2006. The interpretation of restrictive covenants, as applicable to all contracts, is a three-step process. Initially, construction is a matter of law for the court. First, the trial court must decide whether the language is clear and unambiguous. If it is, the court simply enforces the contract according to its clear terms; the contract alone is looked to for its meaning. Next, if the contract is ambiguous in some respect, the court must apply the rules of contract construction to resolve the ambiguity. Finally, if the ambiguity remains after applying the rules of construction, the issue of what the ambiguous language means and what the parties intended must be resolved by a jury or other factfinder. The existence or nonexistence of an ambiguity is a question of law for the court. If the court determines that an ambiguity exists, however, a jury question does not automatically arise, but rather the court must first attempt to resolve the ambiguity by applying the rules of construction in OCGA § 13-2-2. Punctuation and citations omitted. Skylake Property Owners Assn. v. Powell , 281 Ga. App. 715, 716 1 637 SE2d 51 2006.
Section 5.4.8 of the Covenants pertains to the question of signage in Godley Park as follows: Signs . No sign of any kind shall be erected by an Owner or Occupant within Godley Park without the prior written consent of the Architectural Review Committee . Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board and D. R. Horton, Inc. shall have the right to erect reasonable and appropriate signs. This prohibition includes signs erected within a structure on a Lot but visible from outside the structure . The Declarant shall have the right to erect and maintain “For Sale” or “For Rent” signs on any Lot in its sole discretion. No Owner shall erect “For Sale” or “For Rent” signs other than the Declarant. Emphasis supplied. Bowen does not challenge the foregoing as, on its face, plainly preventing her from erecting a “For Sale” sign on her property. Rather, she argues that such prohibition is inapplicable to her real estate agent’s right to do so; that the trial court’s decision to deny the Association’s motion for injunctive relief must be affirmed because the Association failed include a transcript of the hearing below with the record on appeal; that a restrictive covenant prohibiting an owner from erecting a “For Sale” on the owner’s property is an unenforceable restraint on trade; and that such a covenant is an unenforceable restraint on alienation. These arguments are without merit.
