Babb v. Putnam County

605 S.E.2d 33, 269 Ga. App. 431, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 2697, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 1063
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedAugust 9, 2004
DocketA04A1763
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 605 S.E.2d 33 (Babb v. Putnam County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Babb v. Putnam County, 605 S.E.2d 33, 269 Ga. App. 431, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 2697, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 1063 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Blackburn, Presiding Judge.

After being enjoined from keeping a camper and operating a nonapproved sewage system on his property abutting Lake Sinclair pursuant to Putnam County zoning ordinances, George F. Babb, Jr. appeals, contending, among other things, that the trial court erred by: (1) concluding that the use of his land violated such ordinances; (2) failing to afford him adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard; and (3) making improper findings of fact and conclusions of law. As this matter has now become moot, we must dismiss this appeal.

The record shows that Putnam County filed suit against Babb seeking to enjoin him from keeping a camper on his property and from using a certain nonconforming sewage system. Putnam County contended that these uses violated certain county ordinances applicable to the property. After hearing the matter, on March 1, 2004, the trial court granted Putnam County’s request for an injunction and ordered Babb to remove his camper and cease use of the sewage system. On that same date, the trial court denied Babb’s request for supersedeas, a ruling which Babb did not appeal. Thereafter, Babb complied with the injunction, removing the camper and ceasing use of the sewage system by at least April 7, 2004.

It is a rather fundamental rule of both equitable jurisprudence and appellate procedure, that if the thing sought to be enjoined in fact takes place, the grant or denial of the injunction becomes moot. To prevent such an appeal from becoming moot the appealing party must obtain a supersedeas. Board of Commrs. of Richmond County v. Cooper. 1 See also OCGA § 9-11-62 (a) (unless otherwise ordered by the court, final judgment in an action for an injunction shall not be stayed during pendency of an appeal). Accord Citizens to Save Paulding County v. City of Atlanta; 2 Padgett v. Cowart. 3

Jackson v. Bibb County School Dist. 4

As Babb has now complied with the injunction and he did not obtain a grant of supersedeas, this appeal has been rendered moot. Id. As such, we are required to dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Barnes and Mikell, JJ., concur. *432 Decided August 9, 2004 Reconsideration denied September 2, 2004. Adams & Ford, Francis N. Ford, for appellant. Christopher D. Huskins, Donald W. Huskins, for appellee.
1

Bd. of Commrs. of Richmond County v. Cooper, 259 Ga. 785 (387 SE2d 138) (1990).

2

Citizens to Save Paulding County v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 125 (223 SE2d 101) (1976).

3

Padgett v. Cowart, 232 Ga. 633 (208 SE2d 455) (1974).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cobb County v. Mable Oak Development, LLC
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2023
Alex Higdon v. Jane Reid Higdon
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2013
Higdon v. Higdon
739 S.E.2d 498 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2013)
City of Comer v. Seymour
661 S.E.2d 539 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
605 S.E.2d 33, 269 Ga. App. 431, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 2697, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 1063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babb-v-putnam-county-gactapp-2004.