White v. Kaminsky

In this case involving the construction of restrictive covenants in a contract, Dewey C. White appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Nathan H. Popsky, d/b/a Pops’ Wine & Spirits Company, LLC, and Allen D. Kaminsky the “Appellees” because 1 the contract provision at issue is not ambiguous, and 2 even if there were an ambiguity, the trial court should have applied rules of contract construction to resolve the ambiguity. We agree that the trial court failed to properly apply the rules of contract construction to resolve the ambiguity, and reverse. Summary judgment is appropriate under OCGA § 9-11-56 when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We apply a de novo standard of appellate review and view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Citation and punctuation omitted. Vaughn, Coltrane & Assoc. v. Van Horn Constr. 1 White developed a business park called the Paddocks in Forsyth County, Georgia. Appellee Kaminsky owns property in the Paddocks upon which co-Appellee Popsky owns and operates Pops’ Wine & Spirits.

The Paddocks is subject to a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements the “Covenants”. The Covenants establish and provide for an Architectural Review Committee the “Committee”, which has sole authority to approve and regulate the design and construction of all improvements within the Paddocks. Under the Covenants, no sign may be erected in the Paddocks without the approval of the Committee.