Whether a Detention Pond Causes Flooding is Generally for a Jury to Decide

In a recent opinion in a case considered by the Georgia Court of Appeals, the court reversed an order of a Georgia trial court that dismissed a claim.   In Newton's Crest Homeowners' Ass'n v. Camp,  2010 WL 3719894, 4 (Ga.App., Sept. 24, 2010), the court held that testimony from property owners that flooding never started until a developer had performed work on its development created an issue for the jury to decide.   Testimony from the developer's engineer that the pond was designed to reduce post development storm water flows was not enough to support the developer's motion for summary judgment.    The court held that opinion testimony creates a jury issue in the face of testimony of first hand observations from witnesses who observe when and how storm water damages occurred. 

Restrictive Covenants and Property Uses

Most people in subdivisions are aware that covenants exist that restrict the sorts of uses that they make of their property.  What some people are not aware of is that the law in Georgia strictly interprets covenants in favor of the free use of property. While many covenant issues do not involve ambiguous language in a Declaration of Covenants, disputes often arise in the interpretation of covenants on property.  Accordingly, homeowners may have grounds to object to application of covenants where the language of the recorded covenant is ambiguous.