Hmc Realty, Inc. v. Charis Cmty. Hous., Inc., 546 S.E.2d 498 (Ga. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Hmc Realty, Inc. v. Charis Cmty. Hous., Inc., 546 S.E.2d 498 (Ga. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Meinhardt v. Christianson (gactapp, 2008-01-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Meinhardt v. Christianson
Ga. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Miller and Ellington, JJ., concur. 1 HMC Realty v. Charts Community Housing, 273 Ga. 817, 818 (546 SB2d 498) (2001). 2 RTS Landfill v. Appalachian Waste Systems, 267 Ga. App. 56, 62 (2) ( 598 SE2d 798 ) (2004). 3 Byelick v. Michel Herbelin USA, 275 Ga. 505, 506 (1) ( 570 SE2d 307 ) (2002). 4 Bernocchi v. Forcucci, 279 Ga. 460, 461 (1) ( 614 SE2d 775 ) (2005). 5 Univ.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) BellSouth Corp. v. Forsee
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Pa. 2001) (provisions of arbitration employment agreement, unenforceable because they required payment of attorney fees and costs by employee even if she prevailed, severed without disturbing the primary intent of the parties to arbitrate their dispute). 21 HMC Realty v. Charis Community Housing, 273 Ga. 817, 818 ( 546 SE2d 498 ) (2001). 22 Compare Regency Club v. Stuckey, 253 Ga. 583, 586 (3) ( 324 SE2d 166 ) (1984). 23 244 Ga. 636, 640 (2) ( 261 SE2d 572 ) (1979). 24 See also Ken’s Stereo-Video Junction v. Plotner, 253 Ga. App. 811, 813 (1) ( 560 SE2d 708 ) (2002) (scope of activity render…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Byelick v. Michel Herbelin USA, Inc.
Ga. · 2002 · confidence medium
“The entry of permanent relief after an interlocutory hearing is improper unless there is an order consolidating the trial on the merits with the hearing on the application for interlocutory injunction as provided in OCGA § 9-11-65 (a) (2), or the parties have acquiesced.” HMC Realty v. Charts Community Housing, 273 Ga. 817, 818 ( 546 SE2d 498 ) (2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hmc Realty, Inc.
v.
Charis Community Housing, Inc.
S01A0505.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
May 7, 2001.
546 S.E.2d 498
2001 Ga. LEXIS 335
McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb & Nichols, Robert J. Hulsey, C. Terry Blanton, for appellant., Hipes & Norton, Albert L. Norton, Jr., for appellee.
Thompson.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
Thompson, Justice.

The question for decision in this equity case is whether, following a hearing upon a request for an interlocutory injunction, the superior court erroneously entered an order granting permanent relief. We find that the superior court did so err, and reverse.

On July 27, 2000, Charis Community Housing, Inc. (“Charis”) brought suit in superior court to enjoin HMC Realty, Inc. (“HMC”) from foreclosing on certain real estate. HMC had threatened to foreclose on the property pursuant to a security deed which Jay Kessler and Bennie Auerbach assigned to HMC.

Because the foreclosure under the power of sale was scheduled for August 1, 2000, a hearing was held on July 28, 2000, one day after the filing of the complaint. No order was entered to advance and consolidate the hearing on the request for an injunction with the trial of[*818] the action on the merits. No witness testified at the hearing - counsel merely argued the issues and the propriety of injunctive relief. Nevertheless, the superior court enjoined the scheduled foreclosure sale after coming to the conclusion that the assignment of the deed to secure debt was “void and of no effect.”

Decided May 7, 2001. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb & Nichols, Robert J. Hulsey, C. Terry Blanton, for appellant. Hipes & Norton, Albert L. Norton, Jr., for appellee.

Thereafter, HMC filed a motion for reconsideration in which it asked the superior court to clarify its order by stating that it was only intended to be interlocutory. The motion was denied and HMC appealed.

The entry of permanent relief after an interlocutory hearing is improper unless there is an order consolidating the trial on the merits with the hearing on the application for interlocutory injunction as provided in OCGA § 9-11-65 (a) (2), or the parties have acquiesced. Gwinnett County v. Vaccaro, 259 Ga. 61 (1) (376 SE2d 680) (1989). In this case, the superior court made a final determination on the merits and permanently enjoined HMC without issuing a consolidating order, see Ward v. Process Control Corp., 247 Ga. 583, 584 (277 SE2d 671) (1981), or informing counsel that a permanent injunction would be issued. See Regency Club v. Stuckey, 253 Ga. 583, 586 (3) (324 SE2d 166) (1984). In so doing, the superior court erred.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.