Title: Ga. Canoeing Assn. v. Henry

State: georgia

Issuer: Georgia Supreme Court

Document:

263 Ga. 77 (1993) 428 S.E.2d 336 GEORGIA CANOEING ASSOCIATION et al. v. HENRY. S93A0617. Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided April 19, 1993. Cook & Palmour, Bobby Lee Cook, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Craig K. Pendergrast, Groover & Childs, Denmark Groover, Jr., for appellants. Farrar & Farrar, Archibald A. Farrar, for appellee. Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Robert S. Bomar, Senior Assistant Attorney General, amicus curiae. CARLEY, Justice. The facts, insofar as they are relevant to the resolution of the instant appeal, are as follows: Contending that appellee-defendant had obstructed and interfered with their passage along Armuchee Creek, appellant-plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief. Appellee answered and also counterclaimed for injunctive relief as to appellants' passage along the creek. The trial court granted appellee an interlocutory injunction and, on appeal, this court affirmed without opinion pursuant to Rule 59. Georgia Canoeing Assn. v. Henry, 261 Ga. XXIX (1992). Thereafter, appellee moved for summary judgment as to his entitlement to a permanent injunction. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee and appellants appeal. Summary judgment is to be granted only if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact...." OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). In the instant case, genuine issues of material fact do remain. They are the same genuine issues of material fact which were considered by the trial court in granting the interlocutory injunction. The trial court was authorized to resolve those issues only for the purpose of its ruling on the interlocutory injunction. Carter v. Puckett, 237 Ga. 494 (228 SE2d 878) (1976). Fayette County v. Seagraves, 245 Ga. 196, 198 (2) (264 SE2d 13) (1980). After the affirmance of the grant of the interlocutory injunction, appellee could have awaited the bench trial as to his entitlement to permanent injunctive relief. In such a bench trial, the trial court could have considered the evidence which was heard in connection *78 with the interlocutory injunction and any additional evidence which appellee and appellants wished to present. OCGA § 9-11-65 (a) (2). Beaulieu of America v. L. T. Dennard & Co., 253 Ga. 21, 22 (2) (315 SE2d 889) (1984). Appellee did not, however, await the bench trial. He moved for summary judgment. On summary judgment, a trial court is not authorized to resolve disputed issues of material fact. A trial court is authorized only to determine whether disputed issues of material fact remain. If, and only if, no disputed issue of material fact remains is the trial court authorized to grant summary judgment. Since, in the instant case, disputed issues of material fact do remain, it follows that the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment. "[A] trial court's grant of summary judgment will not be sustained if there is any genuine issue of material fact, however imbalanced it may appear." (Emphasis in original.) Beaulieu of America v. L. T. Dennard & Co., supra at 22 (2). *79 a significant difference in the way an appeal is decided." King v. Ingram, supra at 888. Accordingly, Beaulieu of America v. L. T. Dennard & Co., supra at 22 (2). Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.