Court Opinion

ID: 9586003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:06:11.136046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:18.525927
License: Public Domain

Bell, Justice, dissenting.
Because I believe that the holding of the majority opinion is at odds with established precedent and the facts of this case, I respectfully dissent. One of the developers of appellees’ subdivision, who was also one of the drafters of the covenant in question, testified that, although a tennis court on the same lot as a principal single family residential structure would be a permissible accessory development of the lot, appellees’ planned tennis court would violate the covenant. In light of his testimony, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the injunction. White v. Legodais, 249 Ga. 849 (295 SE2d 99) (1982). I would affirm.