Tyler v. Lincoln

Citations: 513 S.E.2d 6; 236 Ga. App. 850Docket: A99A0265

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; June 11, 1999; Georgia; State Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Doyster Tyler and his wife initiated legal action against Steve Lincoln and Lincoln Realty, the developers of a subdivision adjacent to their property, claiming that the development has led to excessive stormwater and sediment runoff affecting their land and ponds. The Tylers appealed a trial court's summary judgment favoring the developers. The couple accumulated an 11.8-acre parcel in Lowndes County between 1975 and 1987, which included a cypress pond and two additional ponds. The Sweetwater Subdivision construction began in 1992 on land across a Norfolk Southern railroad track, causing natural water flow and managing drainage through a 24-inch culvert into the cypress pond. 

In 1994, the Tylers raised concerns with the county regarding the increased stormwater and sediment runoff from the subdivision, but the county required engineering documentation to take action, which the Tylers did not provide. In 1995, Norfolk Southern communicated concerns about the subdivision's runoff plans, indicating a 41% increase in post-development runoff, and recommended the construction of a detention pond to mitigate damage to both the railroad and the Tylers' property. 

Tyler testified that heavy rains caused significant stormwater runoff from the subdivision, leading to sediment accumulation on their property. He noted that their ponds, previously clear, had become polluted and unusable for recreation. Despite his complaints to the developers, there was no corrective action. An expert for the plaintiffs confirmed sediment discharge from the subdivision due to inadequate erosion control, noting increased water discharge into the Tylers' ponds, but did not assess damages. Photographic evidence submitted indicated potential erosion and sediment control failures, along with flooding and water quality issues. However, an inspection by the Lowndes County Soil Erosion Control Specialist found minimal sediment impact on the Tylers' property and none in their ponds.

A committee from the Georgia Soil Water Conservation Commission inspected a subdivision after complaints from plaintiffs and found inadequate maintenance of erosion and sediment control structures, but no significant sediment damage to the plaintiffs' property. Although algae growth in the plaintiffs' ponds made fishing impossible, there was no evidence linking this to increased runoff or sediment from the subdivision. Investigations into a fish kill revealed no contaminated water discharged onto the plaintiffs' property or evidence of detrimental impacts from the subdivision. The engineer for the subdivision, DeVane, acknowledged a 41% increase in runoff but believed existing wetlands would manage the additional volume without increasing flow to adjacent properties. A Lowndes County ordinance prohibits increasing water flow onto adjacent land without owner consent, and drainage systems must pass through approved sedimentation or detention ponds. The developers did not obtain the plaintiffs' agreement, asserting compliance with all ordinances and that investigations found no increase in water or sediment discharge. However, the court noted potential violations of the county ordinance and Georgia's Erosion Sedimentation Act, which requires best management practices for controlling runoff and erosion. Such violations could constitute negligence per se. Evidence from the plaintiffs could allow a jury to find increased water flow and sediment, supporting claims of trespass and nuisance. The plaintiffs' failure to quantify damages does not preclude the inference of nominal damages due to the invasion of property rights. Actual damages relate to the deprivation of property enjoyment due to increased runoff. The court, however, correctly granted summary judgment for the developers regarding the plaintiffs' claims of violating riparian rights, as these rights pertain to landowners adjacent to watercourses defined as 'running waters' under Georgia law.

Plaintiffs argued that surface water runoff from a subdivision onto their property constituted a watercourse, but the court ruled that the flow was facilitated by a man-made culvert, rendering the doctrine of riparian rights inapplicable. The court upheld the developers' summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' punitive damages claims under OCGA 51-12-5.1(b) and attorney fees under OCGA 13-6-11. Plaintiffs alleged the developers intentionally diverted water onto their property and failed to address the resulting issues, claiming this demonstrated bad faith and conscious indifference. However, there was no evidence that the developers had received complaints during construction or that they knowingly designed the drainage system to increase runoff onto the plaintiffs' land. The developers complied with county requirements, and governmental agencies found no evidence of damages to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court determined that the developers were not liable for bad faith or indifference in their actions related to the drainage system. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, with concurrence from Judges Blackburn and Barnes.