DBL Inc. v. Carson

Plaintiffs' were not entitled to an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the defendant from operating its marina, pending resolution of the case, because the plaintiffs' will not suffer irreparable harm from defendant's continued operation of the marina.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Edwin Carson, Brenda Rotureau, Carol Bowman, and Hattie Carson collectively, “landowners” sued DBL, Inc., the company which operates Sail Harbor Marina, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and trespass. The landowners sought both damages and injunctive relief. DBL subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint. Pending final resolution of the claim, the trial court enjoined DBL from operating a marina “on docks which front the landowners’ property.” The trial court also denied DBL’s motion to dismiss. DBL appeals both orders. For reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part. The relevant facts demonstrate that the landowners own real property adjacent to Turner Creek, which evidently is an inter-coastal waterway. In 1972, the landowners leased the property to DBL for use as a marina “upland lease”.1 The upland lease required DBL to obtain all necessary permits in order to erect and maintain the docks. At the time the upland lease was entered, the property already had two rows of floating docks, a bridge connecting the docks to the land, and a ramp to the water. DBL entered subsequent upland leases with the landowners, and the final upland lease terminated on April 30, 2002.

In 1996, DBL applied to the State of Georgia to lease the state-owned river bottom adjacent to the leased upland property “water bottom lease”. Under the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act of 1970,2 DBL was eligible to lease the river bottom by virtue of its leasehold in the landowners’ upland property.3 The State granted water bottom leases for two parcels, which expire in December 2007 and February 2009, respectively.

DBL Inc. v. Carson

Plaintiffs' were not entitled to an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the defendant from operating its marina, pending resolution of the case, because the plaintiffs' will not suffer irreparable harm from defendant's continued operation of the marina.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report