POLO GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. V. RHYMER ET AL. (S13A1635)

POLO GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. V. FORSYTH COUNTY ET AL.

In related appeals, the Supreme Court of Georgia has ruled against a homeowners association in one case and against Forsyth County in the other involving disputesover who is responsible for repairing stormwater pipes.

Polo Golf and Country Club Homeowners Association is a homeowners association at the Polo Fields subdivision, which was built in the 1980s and consists of about 1,000 lots. Many of the lots contain stormwater facilities, which include drainage easements and drainage pipes. The association does not own any of the stormwater facilities in the subdivision, nor does the county, which disclaimed ownership of any stormwater facility that does not lie under its streets. Under the association’s covenants recorded in the Forsyth County land records in 1987, each homeowner is required to maintain and repair his own property, including any stormwater facilities located on his property. In 1996, Forsyth County passed a stormwater management ordinance, setting up standards and guidelines for stormwater management in Forsyth County. In 2004, the county revised the ordinance to update the Georgia stormwater management design manual by adding a section specifically related to Forsyth County’s stormwater management systems. At issue in this case is Section 4.2.2 of the 2004 Forsyth County Addendum to the  Georgia Stormwater Management Manual, which provided a general rule that the owner would be responsible for the stormwater management facilities on his/her property. However, the rule included an exception, which stated: “When a subdivision…has a legally created property or homeowners association, the association will be responsible for maintenance of all drainage easements and all stormwater facilities within the entire development.” In 2006, the Polo homeowners association commissioned a study of the stormwater facilities and learned that much of the system was failing because the corrugated metal pipes had exceeded their 25-year life span.

John and Diane Rymer, who owned a home at Polo Fields, claimed that the drainage pipes on their property did not properly carry water away from their lot during heavy rains, and as a result, their basement flooded. They sent a demand to the homeowners association that it fix the stormwater system. In response, the association notified the county that “neither the individual homeowner nor [the association] should be held responsible for the maintenance, repairs and continued upkeep of these easements.” Three years later, the association informed the Rymers it would be repairing the stormwater facilities of the entire subdivision, including the facilities on the Rymers’ property. The association never made the repairs. In February 2010, the Rymers sued the homeowners association and the county. The association counter-sued the Rymers, and also sued the county, asserting the county could not require it to maintain the stormwater facilities because the addendum “applies to new and redevelopments and…cannot be applied to [Polo].”

Eventually, pipes around the Rymers’ property failed completely, causing sinkholes on a number of lots and additional flooding on the Rymers’ property. In response to the pipe collapse, the county issued a Notice to Comply and Warning Notice to the homeowners association under section 4.2.2 of the addendum. At that point, the Polo homeowners association filed a separate action against the county, arguing the addendum violated the contract clause of the Georgia Constitution. The parties filed motions asking the court to grant them summary judgment – which a judge grants after determining a jury trial is unnecessary because the facts are undisputed and the law falls squarely on the side of one of the parties. The trial court denied the Polo association’s summary judgment motion, but granted the county’s summary judgment motion. The Polo homeowners association then appealed to the state Supreme Court.

In today’s unanimous opinion, written by Chief Justice Hugh Thompson, the high court has upheld the trial court’s denial of the homeowners association’s motion, saying there remained a genuine issue of fact that a jury must decide. The homeowners association had told the Rymers it was commissioning a study and assured them it would make repairs to the stormwater facilities at its own expense. “Under these facts, a jury could find that the Rymers reasonably relied upon Polo’s promise,” the opinion says. “Accordingly, it cannot be said the trial court erred in denying Polo’s motion for summary judgment in its dispute with the Rymers.” But the high court has reversed the trial court’s ruling in the dispute between the homeowners’ association and the county, agreeing with the Polo homeowners’ association that the 2004 addendum did not apply to it and it was not responsible for paying for the repairs.   “Polo was developed nearly twenty years before the addendum was adopted,” the opinion says. “It is not a ‘new development’ or ‘redevelopment.’ Accordingly, it is not subject to section 4.2.2. of the addendum.”