FOURTH D I VI SI ON DI L LA RD, P. J. , RI CKM A N and PI PKI N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

Januar y 29, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 23A 126 5

. TUCK ER et al v

. B RA N N EN LA K E EA ST, LLC.

D I L L A R D , Presid ing J u d ge.

B r a nnen Lak e East, LLC—the o wner o f B rannen Lak e and mu ch, bu t no t all,

o f t h e p r o p e r t

y s u rro u nd ing the lak e—f iled a d ec larato ry j u d gment a c tio n again s t Jo h n

Tu c k e r a nd B urney M arsh—o w ners of p ro perty next to the lak e—to d etermine

w hether it had the r ight to restric t their u se o f the lak e. Fo llo wing a n ev id entiary
hearing, the trial c o u rt ru led in f av o r o f BLE. Tu ck er and M arsh ap p eal, c o ntend ing

the trial c o u rt erred in do ing s o bec au se t he d eed to their p r o p erty established an

easement f

o r u s e o f the lak e by exp ress grant. Fo r the fo llo wing reaso ns, we agree and

rev erse.A tria l c o u r t’ s f ind ings o f f

ac t af t er a d ec larato ry- j u d gment hearing are

“ a nalo go u s to a j u ry v erd ic t and w ill no t b e interf ered w ith if there is a ny e v id enc e to

s u p p o r t them” ; 1 bu t we rev iew the trial c o u rt’ s c o nc lu sio ns o f law de n o v o

. 2 So v iew ed ,
the rec o rd sho w s that o n M a y 7 , 2 0 1 5, Tu c k er and Marsh p urc hased pro p erty o n

B r a nnen Lak e in Statesbo r o —lo c ated at 1000 B rannen Lak e R oad —f ro m I rv in

B r a nnen, I I I ; Ro y Pilgrim Otw ell, I I I ; Caro line Otw ell H arless; M atthew W illiamso n;
J o nathan W illiamso n; and I r v in B rannen, J r. , Family Limited Partnership

. The

w arranty d eed c o nv eying the p ro p erty d esc ribed the trac t as f o llo w s:

A l l t h a t certain trac t o r p arc e l o f land lying and being in t he 45th G. M

. D istric t of B u llo c h Co u nty, Geo rgia[,] being Lo t 6 ac c o rd ing to a plat o f
B r a nnen Lak e prep ared by Lamar O Red d ic k and Asso c iates, Registered
Su rv eyo rs, d a ted Ju ne 24, 1 9 9 3[,] and rec o r d ed in Plat B o o k 41 , Page 80, B ullo c h Co u nty rec o r d s. The a f o resaid p lat and d esc r ip tio n thereo n a re hereby inc o rp o rated by ref erenc e and mad e a p art hereo f

.

1 S tra n ge v

. To wn s , 330 Ga. A p p

. 87 6 , 87 6 (7 6 9 SE2d 6 04) (201 5) (p u nc tu atio n
o mitted ) ; a cco rd Ba n k o

f the Oz a rks v. D K K D ev

. C o

. , 31 5 G a. A p p

. 539 , 540 (7 26 SE2d 6 08) (201 2).

2 See S tra n

ge , 330 Ga. A p p

. at 87 6 (p u nc tu atio n o mitt e d ) ; a c c o rd Ba n k o

f the Oz a rks , 31 5 Ga. A pp

. at 540.

2The J u ne 24, 1 9 93 p lat ref e renc ed in T u c k er and M arsh’ s w a r r an ty d eed is a

su bd iv isio n p lat f

o r Lo ts 1 , 3- 13, 1 5, and 1 6 o f Brannen Lak e, and the p lat d ep ic ts the

lak e as being c o ntigu o u s w ith tho se o ther lo ts in the su bd iv isio n, inc lu d ing L o t 6 —the

lo t w hic h Tu c k er and M arsh o w n. N o tably, t he B rannen Lak e su bd iv isio n p lat and a

su rv ey of Lo t 6 —bo th o f w hic h w ere rec ord ed i n t he Bu llo c h Co u nty rec o rd s—d id

no t p lac e any restric tio ns on ac c ess or u se o f B rannen Lak e. I n ad d itio n, the pro p erty

inc lu d ed a ho u se a nd a f

iv e

- t ier d o c k o n the lak e

. A nd o v er t he co u rse o f the next six

years, Tu c k er and M arsh bo a ted o n and o therw ise used the lak e on nearly a d aily basis.

O n J a n u a r y 31 , 2022, B LE p u rc hased B r annen L ak e, as w ell as a signif ic an t

amo u nt o f p ro p erty o n t he east sid e o f t he lak e, f ro m Caro line Otw ell H a rless and Ro y

Otw ell, I I I —tw o o f t he f

o rmer o w ners o f Tu c k er and M a rsh’ s p r o p erty. I n late M arc h

o f that same year, Cec il Kenned y—B L E ’ s p rinc ip al and m anaging member—w as

bo a ting o n the lak e w ith his family w h e n h e b ec ame inv o lv ed in a heated argu ment

w ith Tu c k er, w ho w as a lso b oating, regard ing w hether the mo to r o n K enned y’ s bo at

exc eed ed the ho rsep o w er o f tho se no rmall y p er m i t ted f o r u se. One w eek a f

ter this

c o nf ro ntatio n (o n M a rc h 30, 2022), B LE’ s c o u nsel sent Tu c k e r and M arsh a letter,

no ting that their 201 5 deed did no t c onv ey any rights to t he lak e ; that a 1 9 87 d eed in

3their c hain o f title inc o rp o r ated c o v enants restric ting u se of the lak e a nd p ro v id ed the

lak e’ s ow ners w ith the p o w e r to c o ntro l a c cess; and theref ore, as c u r r e n t o w ners o f

B r a nnen Lak e, B LE w as terminating their ac c ess ef f ec tiv e immed iately.

D esp ite this letter, Tu c k e r and M arsh c o ntinu ed u sing the lak e. A nd as a resu lt,

o n J u ne 24, 2022, BLE f

iled a d ec larato ry- j u d gment ac tio n a gainst t h e m , seek ing a

d eterminatio n o f w hether it had the right to r estric t their u se o f the lak e. Tu c k er and

M arsh f iled a resp o nse, and o n Sep tember 7 , 2022, the trial c ou rt began an ev id entiary
hearing o n the m a tter, bu t c ontinu ed it af ter B LE’ s tw o w itnesses testif ied so the

p arties c o u ld attemp t med iatio n. Sev eral mo nths later, af t er med iatio n w as

u nsu c c e ssf

u l, the c o urt resu m ed the hearing, d u r i ng w hic h Tu c k er and M arsh’ s

w itnesses testif

ied , and they claimed to hav e a n exp ress easement to u se the lak e as a

resu lt of the su bd iv isio n p lat ref erenc ed in their w a rranty d eed

. A t the c o nc lu sio n o f

the hearing, the trial c o u rt to o k the matter u nd er ad v isement. Bu t o ne mo nth later, it

issu ed an o rd er ru ling that T u c k er and M arsh’ s d eed only p ro v id ed an imp lied lic ense

su bj ec t to rev o c atio n, r ather than a n easement, and so B LE’ s letter to them af ter the

c o nf ro ntatio n terminated that lic ense. This ap p eal f o llo w s

.

4I n their s o le en u m e r atio n o f erro r, Tu c k er and M arsh c o ntend t he trial c o urt

erred in ru ling that B LE c o u ld r estric t their ac c ess t o B r annen Lak e, argu ing the d eed

to t heir p ro p e rty inc o rp o rating the su bd iv isio n p lat established an e asement f o r u se o f

the lak e by exp ress grant. W e agree.
Generally sp eak ing, an easement is “ a n interest in land o w ned and p o ssessed
by ano ther. ” 3 And Geo rgia law has lo ng rec o gniz ed t hat w hen a d ev elo p er “ c o nv eys

lo ts w ith ref

erenc e to a s u bd iv isio n p lat, the grantees may rec eiv e easements in c ertain

f eatu res—mo stly streets and p a rk s—that are d esignated o n the p lat. ” 4 Ind eed , f o r a

small c atego ry o f f

eatu res, “ d esignating them ap pro p riately o n the su b d iv isio n p lat is

eno u gh, absent c ontrary e v id enc e b ased in the p lat o r d eed , to d e mo nst r a t e c lear

3 W S C E Res o rt Own er, LLC v

. Ho lla n d , 31 5 Ga. 69 1 , 6 9 4 (2) (a) (884 SE2d 282) (2023); s ee Ra h n v

. Pi ttma n , 21 6 Ga. 523, 524 ( 1 ) (1 1 8 SE2d 85) (1 9 6 1 ) ( ho ld ing that

a pro p erty right was c r eated w hen grantee’ s d eed ref erred to su bd iv isio n p lat sho w ing right of way); Ho llo mo n v. Bd. o f E d. o f S t ewa rt C nty. , 1 6 8 Ga. 359 , 36 4 (1 47 SE 882) (1 9 29 ) (exp laining that “ [a]n e asement is a right in t he o wner o f o ne p arc el o f land , by

reaso n o f su c h o w nership , t o u se the l a n d o f a n other f o r a sp ec ial p u rp o se no t inc o nsistent w ith the g e n er a l p ro p erty in the ow ner” (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n
o mitted ) ).

4 Ho lla n d , 31 5 Ga. at 6 9 5 (2) ( a); s ee S ta n fi e ld v. Brewto n , 228 Ga. 9 2, 9 4- 9 5 (1 ) (a)- (b) ( 1 84 SE2d 352) ( 1 9 7 1 ) ( exp laining that w hen “ the ow ners of a trac t o f land

su bd iv id e it into lo ts, rec o r d a map o r p lat sho w ing su c h lo ts, w ith d esignated streets and a p u blic p ark , and sell lo ts w ith ref erenc e to su c h map o r p lat,” the p u r c h a s e rs

“ hav e an easement in these p u blic areas” ).

5intent to grant an easement in the f eatu res to lo t o w ners w ho bo u ght w ith ref erenc e

to the p lat. ” 5 Imp orta n t l y, t he d ec isio ns o f the Su p reme Co u rt o f Geo rgia hav e

inc lu d ed in this c atego r y “ (1 ) streets d esignated and laid o u t o n the su bd iv isio n plat;
(2) p ark s; and ( 3) lak es, w hic h we hav e equ a ted to p ark s. ” 6 These f e atu res s hare tw o

th i n g s i n c o mmo n w ith the f irst b eing that t here is “ simp ly a w ell- settled

u nd erstand ing, ref

lec ted in m o r e than a centu r y o f o u r d ec isio ns , t h a t w h e n t hese basic

f eatu res are d e signated o n a su bd iv isio n plat, t here is o r d inarily no reas o n t o d o u bt

that they are inc lu ded as p art o f the u nif ied p lan fo r the su bd iv isio n and meant f o r the

lo t o w ners’ u se. ” 7 Sec o nd , and equ ally imp o rtant, t hese are “ the so rt o f f eatu res f o r

5 Ho lla n d , 31 5 Ga. at 6 9 7 (2) (b) (i).

6 Id. at 6 9 8 (2) ( b) (i) (c itatio ns o m itted ); s ee, e. g. , Go o d s o n v

. Fo rd , 29 0 Ga. 6 6 2, 6 6 5 ( 3 ) ( 7 2 5 SE2d 229 ) (201 2) (ho ld ing w hen a p ro p erty o wner su bd iv id es land , rec o rd s a su bd iv isio n p lat d esignating streets, a nd sells lo ts in the su bd iv isio n w ith ref erenc e to the p lat, she is “ p resu med to hav e irrev o c ably d ed ic ated su c h streets f o r the u se o f all o f the lo t o w ners in the s u bd iv isio n” (p u nc tu atio n o mitted )); Hi ggi n s v

. Odo m , 246 Ga

. 3 0 9 , 31 0 (27 1 SE2d 21 1 ) (1 9 80) (“ W hen a d ev elo p er s ells lo ts

ac c ord ing to a su bd iv isio n p lat, w hic h has a lak e area d esignated o n it, the p u rc hasers

ac qu ire a n irrev o c able easement in that p ark , w ith whic h the d ev elo p er may no t interf ere. ” ); W a lker v. D un c

a n , 236 Ga. 331 , 331 (223 SE2d 6 7 5) (1 9 7 6 ) (same).

7 Ho lla n d , 31 5 Ga. at 6 9 8 (2) (b) (i); s ee Hen dley v

. O v ers t reet , 253 Ga. 1 36 , 1 36 (31 8 SE2d 54) (1 9 84) ( “ I t is w ell settled that w hen a su bd iv isio n c o ntains an attrac tio n
su c h as a p ark o r lak e w hic h rend ers the lo t mo re d e sirable, the sale o f lo ts in ref erenc e to a p lat sho w ing the attrac tio n w ill c reate an irrev o c able easement in s u c h an area f o r

6w hic h designatio n o r d elineatio n o n the plat alo ne c an giv e reaso nable c ertainty abo u t

the sc o pe o f the easemen t g r a n t e d

. ” 8 S i m p l y p u t, settled exp ec tatio ns “ r o o ted in mo re

than a c entu ry o f p rac tic e and the relativ e ease w ith w hic h the sc op e o f an easement

in these f eatu res can be d isc erned su p p o r t a stro ng p resu mp t io n t hat d esignating these

f e a tu r e s on a su bd iv isio n p lat c o nv eys an intent to grant an easement to lo t o w ners

w ho bu y w ith ref

erenc e to the p lat. ” 9

H ere, the 201 5 w arran t y d eed o btained by T u c k er and M arsh w hen they

p u rc hased their p ro p e rty—inc lu d ing t he d o c k o n the lak e—exp l i c itly inc o rp o rated by

ref erenc e the 1 9 9 3 B rannen Lak es su bd iv isio n p lat, w hic h sho w s the lak e as p a rt o f the

su bd iv isio n and c o n t i g u o u s to Lo t 6 (their p ro p erty). Fu rthermo re, neither Tu c k er

and Marsh’ s 201 5 w arranty deed , no r the su b d iv isio n p lat, no r the su rv ey o f Lo t 6 —all

o f w hic h w ere d u l y r e c o r d e d in the B u llo c h Co unty p ro p erty rec o rd s—p lac ed any

the lo t o w ners. ” ).

8 Ho ll a n d , 31 5 Ga. at 6 9 8 (2) (b) ( i); see a ls o Ma co n

- Bi b b C n t y. In du s

. Au th. v

. C en t ra l of Ga

. R. C

o. , 26 6 Ga. 281 , 283 (3) (46 6 SE2d 855) (1 9 9 6 ) (“ An exp ress grant

o f an easement mu st c o ntain langu a g e s u f f ic ient to designate w ith reaso nable c ertainty the land o v er w hic h it extend s” ).

9 Ho lla nd , 31 5 Ga. at 6 9 9 (2) (b) (i).

7restric tio ns o n ac c ess o r u se o f B rannen Lak e. Giv en these c irc u mstanc es, T u c k er and

M arsh po ssess an irrev o c able easement a c qu ired b y exp r ess grant to ac c e ss the lak e. 1 0

N ev ertheless, B L E c o u n ters that neither Tu c k er and M arsh’ s 201 5 w arranty

d eed no r the 1 9 9 3 su bd iv isio n p lat f o r the lak e ref

e r en c ed in the d eed c o nv e yed any
rights to the lak e bec au se a 1 9 87 d eed in their c hain of title exp lic itly i n c o r p o r ated

c o v enants restric ting u s e o f the lak e. A nd so , B L E c laims that it retains the p o w e r to

rev o k e T u c k er and M arsh’ s ac c ess to the lak e. 1 1 Bu t a rev iew o f the r elev ant d eed s and

c o v enants belies this c o ntentio n.

1 0 S ee Hi ggi n s , 246 Ga. at 31 0 (rev ersing trial c o u rt’ s ru ling that lak e’ s o w ner
c o u ld restric t ac c ess and ap p ellant had no right t o ac c e ss the lak e bec au se “ [ w ]hen a d ev elo p er sells lo ts ac c o r d ing to a su bd iv isio n p lat, whic h has a lak e area d esignated

o n it, the p u rc hasers ac q u i r e an irrev o c able easement in that p ark , w ith w hic h the d ev elo p er may no t interf

ere” ); W a l ker , 236 G a. at 331

- 32 (ho ld ing that the d ev elo p er
o f pro p erty granted an easement to use la k e to t h e p ro p erty o w ners lo ts w hen d ev elo p er so ld lo ts a c c o rd ing to a rec o rd ed p lat that inc lu d ed the lak e, and thu s, the trial c o u rt p ro p erly enj o ined any interf erenc e with that right by the d ev elo p e r , as a matter o f law ); P

a tters o n v. Po well , 257 Ga. A p p

. 3 36 , 338 (57 1 SE2d 400) (2002) (c o nc lu d ing that bec au se su bd iv isio n w as c r eated aro u nd lak e a nd lak e w as d esignated

o n the su bd iv isio n p lat, land o w ners in the su bd iv isio n w ere exp r essly granted rights

o f ac cess to and u se o f

the lak e, w hic h they ac qu ired exp ress easements).

1 1 S ee Ro th v. C

on no r , 235 Ga. A p p

. 86 6 , 86 9 ( 1) (b) (51 0 SE2d 550) (1 99 8) (“ When a grantee ac cep ts a d e ed he w ill be bo u nd by the c o v enants c o ntained therein

. . . ” (p u nc tu a tio n o mitted )).

8The c o nstru c tio n of a d eed p resents a qu estio n o f law w hic h t his Co u rt rev iew s

de n o v o

. 1 2 A nd in c o nstru ing a deed , o u r ov errid ing go al is to “ asc ertain and giv e ef f ec t

to the intent o f the p arties. ” 1 3 Fu rthermo re, and imp o rtantly, the intent o f the p arties

mu st be d etermined f

r o m “ the d eed ’ s text a l o n e , and extrinsic ev id e nc e w ill be

a d m i t t e d t o interp ret the d e ed o nly [w hen] the deed ’ s text is s o ambigu o u s that its
meaning c a nno t be d etermined thro ugh ap p lic atio n of t he o rd inary ru les o f textu al

c o nstru c tio n. ” 1 4 Critic ally, w hen a restric tiv e c o v e nant in a d eed i s i n v o l v ed , the

“ legal p resu mp tio n is in f av o r o f the f

ree u se o f the p ro p er t y by its o w ner, and any

d o u bt w ill be c o nstru ed in f a v o r o f the o w ner. ” 1 5

I n this matter, the d eed B LE argu es inc o r p o rates the restric tiv e c ov e n a n t s i n

Tu c k e r and M arsh’ s c hain o f titl e i s a J u n e 26 , 1 9 87 w a rranty d eed f ro m I rv in A

.

B r a nnen, J r. to Lynd a B

. Williamso n and L. H u ghes Wi l l i a m s o n, sp ec if ic a lly

c o nv eying only Lo t 21 a nd a p o rtio n o f L o t 22. That d eed then f u rther p ro v id es that

1 2 S ee Grea t Wa te r L a n i

e r, LLC v

. S u mmer C

res t at Fo u r Sea s on s on La n i er Ho meo wn ers

As s ’n , In c. , 344 Ga. A p p

. 1 80, 1 86 (1 ) (81 1 SE2d 1 ) (201 8).

1 3 S eco n d Refu

ge C hu rch o f Ou r Lo rd Jes u s C

h ri s t v

. Lo lla r , 282 Ga. 721 , 7 24- 25 (2) (6 53 SE2d 46 2) (2007 ) (p unc tu atio n o mitted )

.

1 4 Id. at 7 25 (2) (p u nc tu atio n o mitted )

.

1 5 Ro th , 235 Ga. A p p . at 86 7 (1 ) (a) (p u nc tu atio n o mitted ).

9the p ro p erty is “ sp ec if ic ally c o nv eyed su bj ec t to the Su mmary o f Co nd itio ns and

Restric tio ns f

o r Brannen Lak e Pro p erties, a c o p y o f w hic h is attac hed hereto

. ” W ithin

the a ttac hed Su m mary o f Co nd itio ns and Restric tio ns is a se c t io n entitled

“ Easements,” and u nd e r that sec tio n is a p ro v isio n p ro v id ing that,

The d eed c onv eying title to the lo t(s) shall no t c o nv ey any easement in

o r right to u se the w a ters o f B rannen Lak e, o r to f ish therein, sw im, bo at

o r o t herw ise u t iliz e o r enj o y said lak e. All rights in and to the lak e shall be c o ntro lled by the o w ners o f the lak e. A ny u tiliz atio n o f any p r o p erty beyo nd the lo t lines o f the o w ner shall be d eemed p ermissiv e an d shall

c reate no right, p riv ilege o r lic ense.

A nd while t his 1 9 87 w arranty d eed d o es no t ref e r to T u c k er and Marsh’ s p ro perty, an

Oc to ber 21 , 1 9 9 3 w arranty d e e d f ro m I rv in A

. B r annen, J r. and Caro line M ary

B r a nnen N esmith to A nnie U rsu la Brannen M o xley c onv eys sev eral trac ts, inc lu d ing

Lo t 6 , and p r o v id es that “ [ t]his p ro p erty is c o nv eyed su bj ec t to th e s a m e t e r ms,

c o nd itio ns, and co v enants as a re attac hed to a W arranty D eed f r o m I rv in A

. B rannen,
J r. to Lynd a B

. W illiamso n and L. H u ghes W illiamso n, dated J u ne 26 , 1 9 87

. . . . ” A s

a resu lt, B LE argu es Tu c k er a nd M arsh had co nstru c tiv e no tic e that their p ro p erty,

10Lo t 6 , d esc r i b e d in their 201 5 d eed w a s su bj ec t to the Su mmary o f Co nd itio ns and

Restric tio ns attac hed to that 1 9 87 d eed

. 1 6

B ut this argu m e nt elid es c ru c ial langu age f ro m the Su mmary o f Co nd itio ns and

Restric tio ns. Ind eed , in ad d itio n to the 1 9 87 d eed sp ec if ic ally ref erring only t o Lo t 21

and a po rtio n o f Lo t 22, the f irst p age o f the Su mmary o f Co nd itio ns and Restric tio ns

p ro v id es that I rv in A

. B r annen, J r. , Annie Ursu la B rannen, and Caro line M ary

B r a nnen N esmith are o w ners o f B rannen Lak e lo c a t e d o n l an d d esc r ibed in an

attac hed E x h i b it “ A

. ” The Su mmary next no tes that “[t]hese c o nd itio ns and

restric tio ns shall be ap p lied to a po rti o n o f the land d esc ribed on Exhibit ‘ A’ ” bef o re

then d esc ribing Lo t 21 and the p o rtio n o f Lo t 22 in d etail. 1 7 I mmed iately thereaf ter, the

Su mmary p ro v id es that “ [t]hese c o nd itio ns a nd restric tio ns are no t a p p lic able to an y

o ther po rti o n s o f the p ro perty o f The Ow ners d esc ribed in Exhibit ‘A ’ o r o therw ise. ” 1 8

A nd signif

ic antly, Exhibit “ A ” sp ec if ic a lly ref ers t o Lo t 6 in its d esc rip tio n o f the

1 6 S e e H e n d l e y , 2 5 3 G a. at 1 37 (no t ing that rec o rd ed d eed s and c ov enants p ro v id e p u r c hasers w ith c o nstru c tiv e no tic e o f su ch c ov enants); Ga mb le v

. Bro o ks , 1 7 0 G a

. 6 6 2 , 6 6 2 ( 153 SE 7 59 ) (1 9 30) (exp laining that a rec o rd ed d eed t hat is a link in the p u rc haser’ s c hain o f

title p ro v id es c o nstru c tiv e no tic e o f the c o ntents o f

the d eed ).

1 7 (Emp hasis su pp lied ).

1 8 (Emp hasis su p p lied ).

11p ro p e rty in its e ntirety. Co nsequ ently, altho u gh the Oc to ber 21 , 1 9 9 3 d eed ref ers to

Lo t 6 and the Su mmary o f Co nd it i o n s and Restric tio ns, a pu r c haser’ s rev iew o f the

ac tu al langu age in the Su mmary lead s to a c o nc lu sio n that it d id no t ap p ly to Lo t 6 o r,

at the v ery least, co n f

u sio n as to its sc op e. Cru c ially, restric tio n o n the u se o f land

“ m u st be c learly established , no t only as to the restric tio ns, bu t a lso as t o the land

restric ted , an d r estric tio ns will be s tric tly c o nstru ed

. ” 1 9 A c co rd ingly, the seemingly

c o nt r a d i c t o ry langu a ge betw e en the Oc t o ber 21 , 1 9 9 3 deed and the Su mmary o f

Co nd itio ns and Restric tio ns as to the p ro p erty s u bj ec t to tho se c o nd itio ns and

restric tio ns c a nno t no t j ustif y terminating T u c k er and Marsh’ s u se o f the

lak e—esp ec ially in light of the Brannen Lak e su bd iv isio n p lat exp lic itly ref erenc ed in

their 201 5 d eed

. 2 0

Fo r a ll these reaso ns, w e r ev erse the trial co u rt’ s d ec larato r y j u d gment grant in

f av or o f B LE.

Ju dgmen t rev ers ed. Ri

ckma n a n d Pi

pki n , JJ. , co n cu r

.

1 9 Ro th , 235 Ga. Ap p

. at 86 7 (1 ) ( a); s ee Gra v e de Pera l ta v

. Bla ckb e rry Mo u n ta i

n A s s ’ n , In c. , 31 5 G a. A p p

. 31 5, 31 8- 1 9 (7 26 SE2d 7 89 ) (201 2) (ho ld ing neighbo r h o o d

c o v enant d id no t clearly p ro hibit ho meo w ners f ro m r e n t ing o u t their p ro p erty f o r p erio d s o f

o nly a f ew d ays at a time and , thu s, c o u ld no t be enf o rc ed in that regard ).

2 0 S ee s u pra no te 1 0 & ac c o mp anying text.

12