Court Opinion

ID: 9926336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 17:03:19.963986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:45.575487
License: Public Domain

FOURTH DIVISION
                                DILLARD, P. J.,
                            RICKMAN and PIPKIN, JJ.

                    NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
                    physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
                    days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
                               https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

                                                                    January 24, 2024

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
 A23A1382. SCHAFFER v.                 COLLINSVILLE              MEADOW
     TOWNHOMES, LLC.

      DILLARD, Presiding Judge.

      In 2022, Jeffrey Schaffer recorded an affidavit affecting title to real property in

the Chatham County records, asserting an ownership interest in a parcel of land in

Savannah currently owned by Collinsville Meadow Townhomes, LLC (“CMT”) that

Schaffer conveyed to CMT’s predecessor in interest. Thereafter, CMT filed a

complaint against Schaffer, seeking, inter alia, injunctive relief removing the affidavit

as a cloud upon its title. Following an emergency hearing, the trial court granted

CMT’s motion for permanent injunction and ordered Schaffer to remove the

affidavit. On appeal, Schaffer contends the trial court erred in mischaracterizing the

consideration language in the deeds Schaffer conveyed to CMT’s predecessor, barring
parol evidence pertaining to that consideration, and ruling on issues outside the scope

of CMT’s claim for injunctive relief. For the following reasons, we vacate the trial

court’s order and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

      We review a trial court’s grant of a permanent injunction for a “manifest abuse

of discretion.”1 And we review issues of law de novo, applying the “plain legal error”

standard of review.2 But with respect to factual issues, we construe the evidence “in

favor of the trial court’s findings and affirm if there is any evidence to support them,

regardless of whether the evidence would also support opposite findings.”3

      So viewed, the record shows that on April 22, 2011, Schaffer and Thomas

Berrigan obtained title to a single parcel of land located at 778 East Park Avenue and

its intersection with 1015, 1017, and 1019 Paulsen Street in Savannah. Specifically,

Schaffer acquired an 86 percent interest, Berrigan owned the remaining 14 percent,

      1
       Doxey v. Crissey, 355 Ga. App. 891, 891 (846 SE2d 166) (2020) (punctuation
omitted); accord Harris v. Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 313 Ga. App. 363,
364 (721 SE2d 906) (2011).
      2
          See Doxey, 355 Ga. App. at 891 (punctuation omitted); Harris, 313 Ga. App.
at 364.
      3
          Doxey, 355 Ga. App. at 891 (punctuation omitted); Harris, 313 Ga. App. at 364.
                                            2
and the two had plans to develop the property. But when Schaffer and Berrigan could

not agree on how the development should proceed, David Slonim approached

Schaffer and expressed interest in developing the property as his partner, allegedly

suggesting that Schaffer transfer his interest to Park Paulsen Partners, LLC

(“PPP”)—an entity formed by Slonim.

       Subsequently, on August 22, 2014, Schaffer conveyed his interest in the

property to PPP, via a quitclaim deed, which in part provided: “[Schaffer], for and in

consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration,

receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby releases, bargains and quitclaims unto

[PPP] . . . all of his interest in the following described property . . . .” More than three

years later, on October 23, 2017, Schaffer executed a corrective quitclaim deed

conveying the property in order to reflect the fact that PPP’s more accurate name was

Park & Paulsen Partners, LLC, rather than Park Paulsen Partners, LLC. The language

in the 2017 quitclaim deed similarly provided that consideration was for “the sum of

ONE AND NO/100s ($1.00) DOLLAR and other good and valuable consideration

. . . .” That same day, Schaffer executed a second quitclaim deed to PPP for the

purpose of releasing the property from a lien he placed on it on March 20, 2011,

                                             3
shortly before his original acquisition of the property. And on the following day,

Berrigan conveyed his 14 percent interest in the property to PPP via a similar

quitclaim deed and received $50,000.00 in payment.

      On June 10, 2019, PPP—with Slonim indicated as its sole member—executed

a limited warranty deed conveying the property to CMT, for which Slonim was also

the sole member. A little over a year later, on October 26, 2020, CMT executed a

deed to secure debt, specifically securing a promissory note for over $1.6 million in

order to begin developing the property. And on December 1, 2021, CMT executed a

second deed to secure debt, related to a promissory note for over $1.9 million, for the

purpose of completing the development of the property.

      Schaffer did not reside in Savannah, and although he alleged that he frequently

communicated with Slonim, he further alleged that he was not aware of CMT or the

status of the development of the property—only learning of the latter when he drove

to the site and observed nearly complete town homes. Consequently, believing Slonim

reneged on their alleged agreement to form a partnership, on March 3, 2022, Schaffer

executed an affidavit, asserting an ownership interest in the property and recorded the

it in the Chatham County records. Additionally, Schaffer averred that he had not been

                                          4
compensated for conveying the quitclaim deeds in 2014 and 2017, despite unspecified

promises that he would receive compensation. Later, Schaffer also filed a lis pendens

concerning the property in the Superior Court of Chatham County.

      On May 11, 2022, CMT filed a complaint against Schaffer, seeking a declaratory

judgment ruling the affidavit defective and further seeking injunctive relief removing

it as a cloud upon its title; and attached to the complaint as exhibits were the

aforementioned deeds. That same day, CMT also filed an emergency motion for

permanent injunction, arguing Schaffer’s affidavit prevented sale of the property and

could lead to default and foreclosure under the aforementioned promissory note.

Schaffer filed an answer and counterclaims, and the trial court scheduled a hearing on

CMT’s motion for November 18, 2022.

      The transcript of that hearing was not included in the appellate record, but

allegedly, the trial court only heard argument; and afterward, it scheduled a second

hearing for November 28, 2022. During that second hearing (the transcript of which

was also not included in the appellate record), the trial court again heard arguments,

and at the conclusion of the hearing, the court advised that it was granting CMT’s

motion for permanent injunction—which it did in a November 30, 2022 order.

                                          5
Specifically, the court found that all three quitclaim deeds executed by Schaffer

recited “consideration of One Dollar ($1.00)[,]” and Schaffer was prohibited from

altering those terms with parol evidence. So, according to the court, Schaffer

relinquished his interest in the property and had no valid claim affecting title. Even so,

the court noted that its findings did not impact Schaffer’s compensation claims, which

he could still pursue. Thereafter, Schaffer filed a motion for reconsideration, which

the court denied. This appeal follows.

      1. In his first two enumerations, Schaffer contends the trial court erred by

mischaracterizing the consideration language in the quitclaim deeds by which Schaffer

conveyed the subject property and barring review of parol evidence concerning

consideration. We agree.

      When a grantor of a quitclaim deed “assigns all its right, title, interest, claim or

demand in the tract of land conveyed, it is estopped from asserting any title to or

interest in the property conveyed, acquired previously to the execution of the

quitclaim deed.”4 And needless to say, a grantor “cannot engraft upon a written

quitclaim deed an oral contract which would impose an additional affirmative

      4
       Clements v. Weaver, 301 Ga. App. 430, 434 (2) (687 SE2d 602) (2009)
(punctuation omitted).
                                            6
obligation upon the grantee.”5 Similarly, parol evidence is “not admissible to place

conditions upon a quitclaim deed which is absolute on its face.”6 But as between

parties to the contract, the consideration of a deed can “generally be inquired into

whenever the principles of justice require it.”7 Importantly, this is always true

when“the consideration is expressed in the instrument merely by way of recital, and

not in such a manner as to make it one of the terms and conditions of the deed.”8 In

fact, when the consideration is expressed “only by way of recital, it is permissible to

show by parol testimony that the true consideration is in fact different from that

expressed in the deed.”9

       5
        Id. at 434-35 (2) (punctuation omitted); see Dodson v. Phagan, 227 Ga. 480, 482
(181 SE2d 366) (1971) (Per Curiam) (“[When]the consideration is so expressed as to
make it one of the terms and conditions of the deed, one of the parties thereto cannot,
under the guise of inquiring into its consideration, alter the terms of the instrument.”
(punctuation omitted)).
       6
           Clements, 301 Ga. App. at 435 (2) (punctuation omitted).
       7
       Zorn v. Robertson, 237 Ga. 395, 397 (228 SE2d 804) (1976) (punctuation
omitted); accord Stonecypher v. Ga. Power Co., 183 Ga. 498, 504 (3) (189 SE 13) (1936).
       8
           Zorn, 237 Ga. at 397 (punctuation and footnote omitted).
       9
           Zorn, 237 Ga. at 397 (punctuation omitted); accord Stonecypher, 183 Ga. at 504
(3).
                                             7
      Here, the quitclaim deeds by which Schaffer conveyed his interest in the

property each recite—with only slight differences— consideration of “One Dollar

($1.00) and other valuable consideration.” In contrast, the trial court’s order asserted

the deeds recited “consideration of One Dollar ($1.00).” And while this discrepancy

may appear minor, it is not. As our Supreme Court has explained, the manner in

which consideration is expressed in the quitclaim deeds Schaffer conveyed is a classic

example of consideration merely by way of recital; and as a result, the details of such

consideration are properly subject to further inquiry.10 Given the trial court order’s

(perhaps unintentional) mischaracterization of the consideration recited in the

quitclaim deeds, as well as its citation of case authority supporting an implication that

      10
         See Zorn, 237 Ga. at 398 n.1 (noting that “[e]xamples of ‘recital’ of
consideration would be ‘For value received’ or ‘Ten dollars and other valuable
consideration’”); Gay v. First Nat’l Bank of Atlanta, 184 Ga. App. 340, 343 n.1 (361
SE2d 492) (1987) (same); Stewart v. Phillips, 154 Ga. App. 379, 380 (268 SE2d 427)
(1980) (“The consideration for the deed was expressed as ‘Ten ($10.00) Dollars and
other valuable consideration.’ [When], as here, the consideration was expressed
merely by way of recital, it may be shown that the true consideration is in fact different
from that expressed in the deed.” (punctuation omitted)); Knight v. Munday, 152 Ga.
App. 406, 407 (1) (263 SE2d 188) (1979) (“It is noted that the warranty deed shows
a consideration of ‘Ten dollars and other valuable considerations.’ Under the
circumstances the deed on its face does not show itself to be complete, certain and
unambiguous.”).
                                            8
further inquiry into the details of consideration is precluded,11 we vacate its order and

remand the matter for reconsideration in a manner consistent with this opinion.12

      2. In his third enumeration, Schaffer contends the trial court also erred by ruling

on issues outside the scope of CMT’s claim for injunctive relief. But Schaffer fails to

point to any specific instances in which the court allegedly strayed beyond the scope

of its remit, arguably abandoning this contention.13 Regardless, given our holding in

      11
         See City of Gainesville v. Dodd, 275 Ga. 834, 838-39 (573 SE2d 369) (2002)
(noting that in cases in which the trial court relies on an erroneous legal theory in its
ruling, appellate courts have the discretion to vacate the trial court’s order and
remand for application of the proper legal analysis).
      12
          See Doxey, 355 Ga. App. at 893-94 (1) (b) (vacating trial court’s grant of
permanent injunction in light of court’s legal error in misapplying parol evidence rule
and directing court to consider change in the manner, frequency, and intensity of use
of an easement at issue). CMT argues the trial court should be affirmed based on
Schaffer’s failure to include the hearing transcripts in the appellate record. CMT is,
of course, correct that if “the transcript is necessary for review and appellant omits
it from the record on appeal, the appellate court must assume the judgment below was
correct and affirm.” Quarterman v. Lee, 291 Ga. App. 603, 603 (662 SE2d 234) (2008)
(punctuation omitted). But given that the mischaracterization of the consideration in
the deeds is contained in the trial court’s order, review of the transcript is
unnecessary. See Mikell v. Hortenstine, 334 Ga. App. 621, 622–23 n. 3 (780 SE2d 53)
(2015) (explaining transcript was not necessary to resolution of the appeal as the
alleged error was apparent from the face of the order); Cameron v. Miles, 311 Ga. App.
753, 755 (1) (716 SE2d 831) (2011) (same).
      13
        See Farmer v. Dep’t of Corr., 346 Ga. App. 387, 394 (2) (816 SE2d 376) (2018)
(explaining “an appellant must support enumerations of error with argument and
                                           9
Division 1, supra, vacating the trial court’s order, this claim is moot and we need not

address it.

      Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. Rickman and Pipkin, JJ.,

concur.

citation of authority, and mere conclusory statements are not the type of meaningful
argument contemplated by our rules” (punctuation omitted)).
                                          10