No Equitable Relief For Hapless Homeowner Who Lost Ownership Of His Newly-Constructed House Because It Created 1.1 Acre Encroachment On Neighbor's Land

From an Opinion Summary from Justia.com US Law:

• Appellant Peter McGlashan and appellee Terrell Snowden own adjacent lots of real property in Ware County.
  
  McGlashan contracted to build a home on his lot and took exclusive possession of the completed home in July 2010. In March - April 2011, McGlashan discovered that his home encroached 1.11 acres onto Snowden's lot.
  
  After being informed by McGlashan of the encroachment, Snowden filed a complaint for ejectment, seeking to recover possession of his lot and the dwelling house and improvements located on it as well as damages for trespass, and seeking to be awarded fee-simple title to the home and improvements.
  
  McGlashan filed a counterclaim in which he raised an equitable claim for unjust enrichment and sought permission to remove the home and improvements from Snowden's lot.
  
  McGlashan also filed a third-party complaint against the builders of the home, seeking to recover from them the full value of McGlashan's loss should he lose the ejectment action or the cost of removing the dwelling and improvements from Snowden's lot should McGlashan have prevailed.
  
  After a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment to Snowden. McGlashan appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court.
  
  The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to Snowden on McGlashan's counterclaim for equitable unjust enrichment.
  
  Upon review, the Court disagreed with McGlashan's contention that the trial court erred.(1)

Source: Opinion Summary - McGlashan v. Snowden.

For the ruling, see McGlashan v. Snowden, S12A1896 (Ga. February 18, 2013).

(1) The court's ruling was short and sweet:

• The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to Snowden on McGlashan's counterclaim for equitable unjust enrichment.[2]
  
  We disagree with McGlashan's contention that the trial court erred. "Equity will grant relief only where there is no available adequate and complete remedy at law" (Cantrell v. Henry County, 250 Ga. 822 (1) (301 SE2d 870) (1983)), and "[t]he availability of money damages affords ... an adequate and complete remedy...." Besser v. Rule, 270 Ga. 473, 475 (510 SE2d 530) (1999).
  
  McGlashan's third-party complaint against the allegedly-negligent builders of the home seeks monetary damages for McGlashan's loss of the home should he lose the ejectment action filed by Snowden.
  
  Since McGlashan could recover money damages from the builders in this action, it would be inappropriate for the trial court to grant him equitable relief. See Coleman v. Retina Consultants, 286 Ga. 317 (3) (687 SE2d 457) (2009). See also Century Bank of Georgia v. Bank of America, N.A., 286 Ga. 72 (1) (685 SE2d 82) (2009).
  
  Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment to Snowden on McGlashan's counterclaim seeking equitable relief.

In footnote 2 of the ruling, the court appears to give a subtle hint that, rather than bringing an equitable claim for unjust enrichment, the hapless homeowner who just lost his newly-constructed home due to an alleged builder screw-up should have simply urged the trial court establish:

• that he was acting in good faith when having the home built on the neighbor's lot, and
• the value of the home,

and then apply the state statute applicable in matters such as these. Then, in the event of a ruling in favor of the ejectment-seeking landowner, the landowner, pursuant to the Georgia ejectment statute, would have the option of either:

• snatching the home, subject to the payment to the hapless homeowner, who acted in good faith, for the value of the improvements, such payment to be made within such time as may be fixed by the court in the decree, or
  ......................
• relinquish, to the homeowner, title to the 1.1 acre of land upon which the house sat, and to receive from said homeowner, the value of the land found by the jury to be due him, such payment to be made by the homeowner to the landowner within such time as the court may direct by its decree.

Under either option, "equity" will have been done by simply applying the statute, as opposed to asking a court to grant "equitable relief."

For the homeowner to seek relief in this case through a counterclaim seeking "equitable relief" when, as just described, there was an adequate remedy at law available to him suggests that he (or his attorney) may have committed a tremendous screw-up in the approach taken in litigating this case. The court, in footnote 2, stated:

• [W]e do not in any way address the propriety of the trial court's rulings on other matters such as the proper ownership of the home in question or McGlashan's alleged "good faith" in building the home in a manner that encroached upon Snowden's property. See, e.g., Small v. Irving, 291 Ga. 316 (729 SE2d 323) (2012); OCGA § 44-11-9(a).

By the way, in another footnote, the court suggests that if the landowner was aware of the fact that the home was being built on his land and sat silently, doing nothing to object in the process, the landowner may not be entitled to keep the home. In footnote 1, the court stated:

• It is undisputed that Snowden, living in Florida, had no knowledge of the construction on his property until McGlashan informed him of the encroachment. Compare Ga. Railroad &c. Co. v. Hamilton, 59 Ga. 171 (1877) (railroad was estopped from denying Hamilton's title and recovering Hamilton's house since officials knew Hamilton was building on railroad land and did not object, and Hamilton acted in good faith).