Black Island Homeowners Association Inc. v. Marra

Collateral estoppel did not apply where the trial court did not reach the merits of the plaintiffs' identical claim in a prior suit.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

George Marra and Jay Woolsey, property owners on Black Island, Georgia “the owners”, sued the Black Island Homeowners Association, Inc. “the Association” to enjoin alleged violations of restrictive covenants governing the island. Following a bench trial, the trial court issued the requested injunction. The Association appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to find several claims barred by the statute of limitation and in applying the doctrine of res judicata. For reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part. This is the owners’ second suit against the Association. The first suit, which apparently alleged that the Association had violated the restrictive covenants by mowing undeveloped areas on the island, resulted in judgment for the Association. In an order dated November 1, 2000, the trial court concluded that the Association “violates the restrictive covenants whenever it mows any part of the undeveloped area.” It further found, however, that the owners had been aware of the mowing for more than two years prior to filing their complaint, which was, therefore, barred by the two-year statute of limitation.1

On February 2, 2001, the owners filed the instant action. Count one alleges that the Association violated the covenants by mowing the undevoloped area on January 28, 2001. In count two, the owners claim that the Association improperly excavated part of the undeveloped area. Count three alleges that the Association acted without authorization on January 18, 2001, when it adopted a resolution permitting mowing of undeveloped areas. The owners also claim in count four that the Association violated the restrictions by constructing a horse stable in an undeveloped area.

Black Island Homeowners Association Inc. v. Marra

Collateral estoppel did not apply where the trial court did not reach the merits of the plaintiffs' identical claim in a prior suit.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report