Hayes v. Lakeside Village Owners Ass'n, Inc., 282 Ga. App. 866

Summary

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for a homeowners association in a personal injury action arising from the collapse of a chair in a common area. The court held that a recorded covenant requiring parcel owners to inspect common facilities and use them at their own risk was enforceable against subsequent grantees with notice, shifted the inspection duty away from the association, did not require the owners' signatures, and did not violate Georgia public policy.

Holdings

1. A covenant concerning land or its use is enforceable against a subsequent grantee with notice, even if the covenant is not a traditional covenant running with the land and the subsequent grantee did not sign it. The covenant here concerned the use and enjoyment of the common areas and was enforceable against the Hayeses because they had notice through their deed and the recorded covenant.
2. The covenant shifted the duty to inspect the common areas and the risk of their use to the parcel owners and users, relieving the Association of a duty to inspect the common areas and maintain them in a safe condition for purposes of the Hayeses' claim.
3. The alleged defect in the chair and the allegation of gross negligence did not preclude summary judgment because, under the enforceable covenant, the Association owed the Hayeses no duty to inspect the common area, and a negligence claim requires a breached legal duty.
4. The covenant was enforceable against the Hayeses without their signatures because the obligation arose from a restrictive covenant concerning land and its use, not from a contract requiring their assent by signature.
5. Enforcement of the covenant did not violate Georgia public policy or OCGA § 44-3-231(g). The statute did not apply because the recorded covenant predated the statute and the property was not submitted to the statutory article; in any event, the covenant did not prevent the Hayeses from bringing a tort action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the recorded covenant was a covenant concerning the land or its use and therefore enforceable against the Hayeses as subsequent grantees with notice.
2. Whether the covenant shifted the duty to inspect and maintain the common areas from the Association to the parcel owners and users.
3. Whether an alleged latent defect or gross negligence created a factual issue precluding summary judgment.
4. Whether the covenant was unenforceable against the Hayeses because they did not sign it.
5. Whether enforcement of the covenant violated Georgia public policy or OCGA § 44-3-231(g).

Disposition

affirmed