Young v. Sweetbriar, Inc., 222 Ga. 262, 268 (2) (149 SE2d 474) (1966). See also Garner v. Young, 214 Ga. 109, 110 (3) (103 SE2d 302) (1958) ("The mere non-use of a dedicated street is insufficient to show abandonment."); Pass v. Forestar Ga. Real Estate Group, 337 Ga. App. 244, 246 (787 SE2d 250) (2016) ("mere nonuse does not work a forfeiture of the right to the use of a public road") (citations and punctuation omitted). Although the trial court and the trust have cited cases that they contend hold otherwise, those cases are distinguishable.
See Tietjen I, II, and III ; Pass v. Forestar GA Real Estate Group, Inc. , 337 Ga. App. 244, 246, 787 S.E.2d 250) (2016) (regarding a private road, a question of fact existed as to the issue of whether plaintiff had abandoned the private access way through nonuse, existence of gate to block the way, and city's abandonment of the public road); Mobley , 266 Ga. at 849-850 (1), 471 S.E.2d 507 (affirming a denial of motion for new trial following jury finding that the easement had been abandoned when, in addition to nonuse, the predecessor in title had blocked the easement with a fence); Central of Ga. R. Co. v. DEC Assoc., Inc. , 231 Ga. App. 787, 789 (1) (a), 501 S.E.2d 6 (1998) (holding abandonment by nonuse for over 25 years of an unrecorded written easement). See also Fessenden , 228 Ga. at 62-63, 183 S.E.2d 771 ; Kelsoe , 120 Ga. at 952-954, 48 S.E. 366.
Young v. Sweetbriar, Inc. , 222 Ga. 262, 268 (2), 149 S.E.2d 474 (1966). See also Garner v. Young , 214 Ga. 109, 110 (3), 103 S.E.2d 302 (1958) ("The mere non-use of a dedicated street is insufficient to show abandonment."); Pass v. Forestar GA Real Estate Group , 337 Ga. App. 244, 246, 787 S.E.2d 250 (2016) ("mere nonuse does not work a forfeiture of the right to the use of a public road") (citations and punctuation omitted). Although the trial court and the trust have cited cases that they contend hold otherwise, those cases are distinguishable.