State Soil & Water Conservation Comm'n v. Stricklett

A factual question remained as to whether construction of defendants' home substantially interfered with the plaintiffs' nonexclusive easement right to safely operate and maintain a dam.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

These appeals arise from a complaint for equitable relief brought by the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission the Commission and the Broad River Soil and Water Conservation District the District alleging that Mark and Sharon Stricklett should be ordered to remove the residence they built on a location near a dam across the South Fork of the Broad River in Madison County. The Commission and the District claim the residence substantially interferes with a pre-existing easement granted to the District to operate and maintain the dam and impound floodwaters. The Strickletts counterclaimed seeking damages against the Commission and the District for intentional infliction of emotional distress, abusive litigation, and expenses of litigation. They also moved for recovery of attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Strickletts on the claim for equitable relief on the basis that the residence does not substantially interfere with the easement, and that the relief sought was barred by the principles of laches and equitable estoppel. The trial court also entered final judgment denying the Strickletts’ counterclaims and their motion for attorney fees. In Case No. A01A1364, the Commission and the District appeal from the summary judgment order in favor of the Strickletts, and in Case No. A01A1365, the Strickletts appeal from the judgment against their counterclaims and motion for attorney fees. Because we find that factual issues and public policy considerations preclude the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Strickletts on the claim for equitable relief, we reverse the grant of summary judgment in Case No. A01A1364. In Case No. A01A1365, we vacate the denial of attorney fees sought pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14, and reverse the trial court’s judgment on the pleadings dismissing the Strickletts’ claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and expenses of litigation. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the Strickletts’ claim for abusive litigation as premature.

State Soil & Water Conservation Comm'n v. Stricklett

A factual question remained as to whether construction of defendants' home substantially interfered with the plaintiffs' nonexclusive easement right to safely operate and maintain a dam.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report