Roberts v. Roberts

7 Citing cases

  1. Valley v. S. Atl. Conference of Seventh Day Adventist

    347 Ga. App. 131 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018)

    But, whether a trial court's order denying a motion for contempt is considered final or interlocutory turns on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. See Roberts v. Roberts , 206 Ga. App. 423, 423 (1), 425 S.E.2d 414 (1992) (appellant properly filed direct appeal from trial court's postjudgment order denying motion for contempt, where "nothing in the trial court's order reflect[ed] it [was] other than a final judgment"). And, we conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the trial court's order denying Valley's motion for contempt constituted a final judgment that was directly appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1).

  2. Savannah Jaycees Foundation v. Gottlieb

    273 Ga. App. 374 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 6 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Roberts v. Roberts, 206 Ga. App. 423, 424 (2) ( 425 SE2d 414) (1992). (Citation omitted.)

  3. Harvey v. Lindsey

    251 Ga. App. 387 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 9 times

    A careful reading of that order shows that Lindsey bore sole responsibility for erosion and problems caused by the diversion of water "or other intentional or negligent destruction of easements which causes any of the same to be impassable," and only in those circumstances did she "bear the cost and expense associated with returning said easements to their original condition." See Roberts v. Roberts, 206 Ga. App. 423, 424 (2) ( 425 S.E.2d 414) (1992) (easement rights impliedly include authority to do things reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the rights granted). Harvey mistakenly complains that the second order constituted a change that would relieve Lindsey of any obligation to repair any impediments to travel, including future ones caused by farming operations.

  4. Parris Properties, LLC v. Nichols

    305 Ga. App. 734 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 31 times
    Finding that where owner granted express easement for construction of a sewer, the grantee could unilaterally replace the four inch diameter sewer pipe with a six or eight inch diameter sewer pipe

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Roberts v. Roberts, 206 Ga. App. 423, 424 (2) ( 425 SE2d 414) (1992). See also Massey v. Britt, 224 Ga. 762 ( 164 SE2d 721) (1968).

  5. Clark v. Chapman

    301 Ga. App. 117 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 3 times

    " (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Roberts v. Roberts, 206 Ga. App. 423, 425 (2) ( 425 SE2d 414) (1992). Moreover, "[w]here equity acquires jurisdiction for any purpose it will retain jurisdiction to give full and complete relief, whether legal or equitable, as to all purposes relating to the subject matter."

  6. Lanier v. Burnette

    245 Ga. App. 566 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 22 times

    For an easement for ingress and egress, this means grading, placing gravel, installing and maintaining culverts and bridges, paving, or cutting of trees and brushes off the road and shoulder, which are ancillary to the easement granted. Sadler v. First Nat. Bank of Balwin County, 267 Ga. 122, 123 (2) ( 475 S.E.2d 643) (1996); Jakobsen v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 260 Ga. 565 (2) ( 397 S.E.2d 435) (1990);Roberts v. Roberts, 206 Ga. App. 423, 425 (2) ( 425 S.E.2d 414) (1992). It cannot be said that a utility easement over an ingress and egress easement is a reasonable use "that significantly relate[s] or [is] essential to the object for which the easement [was] granted."

  7. Johnson v. Kaplan

    483 S.E.2d 292 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 5 times

    The trial court erred in its interpretation of the Helton order. We note that the defenses to a civil contempt action, in addition to comprising arguments that the order was not violated and that the order was not definite and certain, include the argument that the violation was not wilful. Roberts v. Roberts, 206 Ga. App. 423, 424 (2) ( 425 S.E.2d 414) (1992). We have determined that the first two possible defenses were not meritorious in this case.