Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hubert v. Turner Outdoor Advertising, Ltd.
Citations: 178 Ga. App. 789; 344 S.E.2d 542; 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 1794Docket: 71799
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; April 22, 1986; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Appellant landowner filed a lawsuit against appellees for unpaid rent related to a billboard on the appellant's property. Appellees had two billboards on the land, while the appellant argued that the ground lease only covered one, claiming fair rental value was owed for the second. Appellees contended both displays were covered by the lease and all rent had been paid. After a non-jury trial, the court ruled in favor of appellees, leading the appellant to appeal after a motion for a new trial was denied. The appellant challenged the constitutionality of OCGA § 13-2-3, which prioritizes the intention of the parties in contract interpretation. However, the Supreme Court's transfer of the case indicated that no constitutional issue was properly raised. The trial court found the lease ambiguous and admitted extrinsic evidence to clarify the parties' intentions, which the appellant contested, asserting the lease's terms were clear and unambiguous. The court determined that the lease's language allowed for multiple interpretations, validating its decision to consider extrinsic evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that it would not overturn factual findings based on conflicting evidence unless there were erroneous legal conclusions. Consequently, the appellant's motion for a new trial was denied, and the judgment in favor of appellees was upheld.