Court Opinion

ID: 9847461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:00:13.021876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:13.919656
License: Public Domain

Mobley, Chief Justice.
Dorothy T. Davies, John W. Purvis, and Fannie J. Purvis brought this action against R. H. Curry, Jr., and Mrs. Maurice Gibbs Curry, seeking a temporary and permanent injunction against their violating a restrictive covenant prohibiting property in a subdivision from being used for other than residential purposes. The trial court, after hearing evidence, denied the temporary injunction sought. The appeal is from that judgment. Enumerated as error is the refusal to grant a temporary injunction and the dissolving of the temporary restraining order.
Mrs. Davies and Mr. and Mrs. Purvis own lots in the subdivision, as does Mrs. Curry. The subdivision restrictions provide that no lot shall be used except for residential purposes, nor shall any lot or part thereof ever be used for trade or business of any kind. It is undisputed that Mr. and Mrs. Curry moved out of their residence and remodeled it inside for use as a beauty parlor.
Mr. and Mrs. Curry contend that injunction should not be granted because the plaintiffs allowed the remodeling to be practically finished and large expenditures to be made without voicing any objection to it.
The trial judge was authorized to find from the evidence the following: Mr. and Mrs. Curry made application for the rezoning of the property from residential to commercial in October, 1971. Notice of the application was published in the local paper, and the rezoning was granted. They moved out of the residence and began remodeling it for use as a beauty parlor the latter part of June, 1972. The injunction action was filed July 31, 1972. Mrs. Curry personally told Mrs. Davies that the property would be used for commercial purposes prior to the commencement of the structural changes. The defendants expended between $12,000 and $15,000 in *192remodeling the building prior to the service of the injunctive complaint on them, and the work was 97 to 98% complete at that time. Mrs. Curry sold the beauty parlor she was operating on the day before she was to move into the remodeled building, and had no place to operate her business when the plaintiffs filed their action for injunction. None of the plaintiffs had notified the defendants that they objected to the conversion of their residence into a beauty parlor until the injunctive action was filed.
It is contended by the plaintiffs that the rezoning of the property from residential to commercial use could not nullify the restrictive covenants. We agree with this contention. The only effect of the zoning on the covenants would be to limit the restrictions to a period of 20 years. Code Ann. § 29-301 (Ga. L. 1935, p. 112; Ga. L. 1962, p. 540); McKinnon v. Neugent, 225 Ga. 215 (167 SE2d 593).
The introduction of the evidence concerning the rezoning of the property served only to show that the plaintiffs had constructive notice of the intention of the defendants to convert their property to a business use.
It is well established by numerous decisions of this court that the extraordinary equitable relief of injunction will be denied a party where, with full knowledge of his rights, he has been guilty of delay in asserting them, and has allowed large expenditures to be made by another party on whom great injury would be inflicted by the grant of the injunction. Holt v. Parsons, 118 Ga. 895 (1) (45 SE 690); City of Elberton v. Pearle Cotton Mills, 123 Ga. 1, 3 (50 SE 977); Head v. Crouch, 207 Ga. 648 (63 SE2d 647); Black v. Barnes, 215 Ga. 827, 828 (114 SE2d 38); Goodwin v. First Baptist Church, 225 Ga. 448, 451 (169 SE2d 334).
The plaintiffs cite Voyles v. Knight, 220 Ga. 305, 306 (138 SE2d 565), to support their contention that the breach of a restrictive covenant against the "use” of property for a business purpose is accomplished when the *193building ceases to be a residence and is used for business purposes. That case dealt entirely with the meaning of the restrictive covenant, and no question of an equitable estoppel was involved.
The plaintiffs also cite Taylor v. Smith, 221 Ga. 55 (142 SE2d 918), and state that in that case the defendants had already remodeled their building and were using it as a beauty shop. The statement of facts in the Taylor case shows that the case was heard on the pleadings and a stipulation of facts which raised only one issue, whether the restrictive covenant prohibited the use of the defendants’ property for beauty shop purposes.
The case of Burton v. East Point Motors, 209 Ga. 872 (76 SE2d 700), is similar to the present case. An injunction was sought against the use of property as an automobile sales and service business, contrary to the restriction in a subdivision that the lots "shall not be used otherwise than for residential purposes.” The building was almost completed before an injunction was sought, and it was held by this court that the plaintiffs had forfeited their right to injunction by their delay in bringing the action until the defendants had expended large sums of money in constructing their building. There had been no "use” of the building at the time the injunctive action was brought.
We do not understand the plaintiffs to contend that the cause of action for injunctive relief does not accrue until the "use” of the building for business purposes is complete, for in that event their petition for injunction would be premature, since the defendants had not begun the operation of their business.
The granting or denial of interlocutory injunctions rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge according to the circumstances of each case. Code § 55-108.
"In an application for an interlocutory injunction there should be a balancing of conveniences and a consideration of whether greater harm might be done by *194refusing than by granting the injunction. Everett v. Tabor, 119 Ga. 128 (4) (46 SE 72); Jones v. Lanier Development Co., 188 Ga. 141 (2 SE2d 923); Ballard v. Waites, 194 Ga. 427, 429 (3) (21 SE2d 848).” Maddox v. Willis, 205 Ga. 596 (5) (54 SE2d 632).
Under the evidence at the interlocutory hearing the trial judge was authorized to find that the plaintiffs were aware of the structural changes which the defendants were making to convert their residence into a business use, and that they were guilty of laches in voicing no objection to such use, and allowing the defendants to expend large sums of money, before filing their application for injunction. It was not error, therefore, to deny the interlocutory injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Nichols, Hawes and Gunter, JJ., who dissent.