And if the terms are clear and unambiguous, the court looks to the contract alone to determine the parties' intent. Parris Props., LLC v. Nichols, 305 Ga.App. 734, 738(1)(a), 700 S.E.2d 848 (2010). By the terms of the Easements, Georgia Power is allowed to construct “one or more lines for transmitting electric current with towers, frames, poles, wires and other necessary apparatus,” whether “now or hereafter,” without any express limitation; provided, however, that Georgia Power's predecessor was required to compensate the grantor if it erected more than 13 poles as to one easement, and more than 27 poles as to the other.
And if the terms are clear and unambiguous, the court looks to the contract alone to determine the parties' intent.Parris Props., LLC v. Nichols, 305 Ga. App. 734, 738 (1) (a) (700 SE2d 848) (2010). By the terms of the Easements, Georgia Power is allowed to construct "one or more lines for transmitting electric current with towers, frames, poles, wires and other necessary apparatus," whether "now or hereafter," without any express limitation; provided, however, that Georgia Power's predecessor was required to compensate the grantor if it erected more than 13 poles as to one easement, and more than 27 poles as to the other.
Neither the parties nor the trial court addressed or considered below the principle that a change in "the manner, frequency, and intensity of use" of the easement within the physical boundaries of the existing easement is permitted without consent of the other party, so long as the change is not so substantial as to "cause unreasonable damage to the servient estate or unreasonably interfere with its enjoyment." Parris Properties, LLC v. Nichols , 305 Ga. App. 734, 739 (1) (b), 700 S.E.2d 848 (2010) (citations and punctuation omitted). On appeal, this Court found that the phrase "bridle trail" is unambiguous.
On appeal from the denial of a motion for directed verdict, “we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and the standard of review is whether there is any evidence to support the jury's verdict.” Parris Properties v. Nichols, 305 Ga.App. 734, 735(1), 700 S.E.2d 848 (2010) (citation omitted). Considering these principles, we find no ground for reversal.
The entire basis of Scott's expert opinion was his interpretation of the AMIPA, which is a legal question we review de novo. See Parris Props., LLC v. Nichols, 700 S.E.2d 848, 852 (Ga. App. 2010). However, our prior panel (as well as the district court) concluded that the AMIPA did not, in fact, prohibit nValeo's officers from taking out loans from the company.
Under Georgia law, "the cardinal rule of contract construction is to ascertain the parties' intent, and where the contract terms are clear and unambiguous, the court will look to that alone to find the true intent of the parties." Parris Props., LLC v. Nichols, 700 S.E.2d 848, 853 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). The 1974 Agreement provides that, after the protective devices are installed and "found to be in satisfactory working order," the devices "shall be immediately put into service, operated and maintained by [CSXT] so long as [CSXT] operate[s] trains across" the Emory Street Crossing, or until the parties agree that the signals are no longer necessary, the crossing is abandoned, or until "other legal requirements necessitate cessation of operation and maintenance of signals thereat.
” Parris Props., LLC v. Nichols, 700 S.E.2d 848, 854 (Ga.Ct.App. 2010) (citations omitted).
"In construing the language of an express easement," such as the one at issue here, courts "apply the rules of contract construction." Parris Props., LLC v. Nichols, 700 S.E.2d 848, 853 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Mun. Elec. Auth. of Ga. v. Gold-Arrow Farms, Inc., 625 S.E.2d 57, 61 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)). "The cardinal rule of contract construction is to ascertain the parties' intent, and where the contract terms are clear and unambiguous, the court will look to that alone to find the true intent of the parties."
Conversion is defined as “an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over personal property belonging to another, in hostility to his rights; an act of dominion over the personal property of another inconsistent with his rights; or an unauthorized appropriation.” Parris Prop. LLC v. Nichols, 305 Ga.App. 734, 744–45, 700 S.E.2d 848, 858 (Ga.Ct.App.2010) (citing Williams v. Nat. Auto Sales, 287 Ga.App. 283, 285, 651 S.E.2d 194 (Ga.Ct.App.2007) (citations, punctuation, and footnotes omitted)). The prima facie case for conversion requires a plaintiff to show that “she has title to the property, that the defendant wrongfully possessed it, and that she demanded possession but the defendant refused to surrender it.” Dierkes v. Crawford Orthodontic Care, P.C., 284 Ga.App. 96, 98, 643 S.E.2d 364, 367 (Ga.Ct.App.2007).
Thus, any distinct act of dominion and control wrongfully asserted over another's personal property, in denial of his right or inconsistent with his right, is a conversion of such property." Parris Properties, LLC v. Nichols, 305 Ga. App. 734, 744-45, 700 S.E.2d 848, 858 (2010), quoting Williams v. Nat. Auto Sales, 287 Ga. App. 283, 285, 651 S.E.2d 194 (2007) (Citations, punctuation, and footnotes omitted). Nondischargeability under § 523(a)(6), however, requires a "deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury."