Court Opinion

ID: 9781433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:37:42.181336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:26.476820
License: Public Domain

MCFADDEN, Judge,
concurring fully and specially.
I concur fully in the majority’s opinion. I write to add that Harmon’s equitable argument is not only foreclosed by the fact that he has not articulated a legal argument demonstrating how equitable title was conveyed pursuant to an unenforceable contract. It is also foreclosed by:
[T]he first maxim of equity is that equity follows the law. Thus, a court of equity has no more right than a court of law to act on its own notion of what is right in a particular case. Where rights are defined and established by existing legal principles, they may not be changed or unsettled in equity. Although equity does seek to do complete justice, it must do so within the parameters of the law.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hopkins v. Virginia Highland Assoc., 247 Ga. App. 243, 249 (1) (541 SE2d 386) (2000). See also Dolinger v. Driver, 269 Ga. 141, 143 (4) (498 SE2d 252) (1998); OCGA § 23-1-6.
*271Decided March 30, 2011
Reconsideration denied April 14, 2011
Beal & Blitch, James D. Blitch TV, for appellant.
Conner & Jackson, Neal L. Conner, Jr., Hall, Booth, Smith & Slover, Anthony A. Rowell, Kevin A. Leipow, for appellees.