O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 13-8-54 (2019)

(For effective date, see note.) Judicial construction of covenants

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A court shall construe a restrictive covenant to comport with the reasonable intent and expectations of the parties to the covenant and in favor of providing reasonable protection to all legitimate business interests established by the person seeking enforcement. (b) In any action concerning enforcement of a restrictive covenant, a court shall not enforce a restrictive covenant unless it is in compliance with the provisions of Code Section 13-8-53; provided, however, that if a court finds that a contractually specified restraint does not comply with the provisions of Code Section 13-8-53, then the court may modify the restraint provision and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interest or interests and to achieve the original intent of the contracting parties to the extent possible.

History

(Code 1981, § 13-8-54, enacted by Ga. L. 2009, p. 231, § 3/HB 173.)

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - For information as to the effective date of this Code section, see

the delayed effective date note at the beginning of this article.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2013–2026 · leading case: Motorsports of Conyers, LLC v. Burbach, 892 S.E.2d 719 (Ga. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Motorsports of Conyers, LLC v. Burbach, 892 S.E.2d 719 (Ga. 2023). · cites it 24× “” OCGA § 13-8-54 (a). And, as now authorized by the 2010 constitutional amendment, it expressly allows blue-penciling: if a court concludes that a restrictive covenant violates the GRCA as written, the court “may 21 modify the restraint provision and grant only the relief…”
Holton v. Physician Oncology Servs., 742 S.E.2d 702 (Ga. 2013). · cites it 2× “…399, § 5. Therefore, the act’s provision on judicial modification of restrictive covenants does not apply here. See OCGA § 13-8-54 (b).”
DJR Assocs., LLC v. Hammonds, 241 F. Supp. 3d 1208 (N.D. Ala. 2017). “Ga. Code Ann. § 13-8-54 (b). Ga. Code Ann.”
Patricia Kennedy v. the Shave Barber Co., LLC, 822 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “" OCGA § 13-8-54 (a). Regarding a trial court's decision to issue an interlocutory injunction, our Supreme Court has held that [a]n interlocutory injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and the power to grant it must be prudently and cautiously exercised.”
Carpetcare Multiservices, LLC v. Carle., 819 S.E.2d 894 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “" 1 If there needed to be a geographic limitation, then I also believe the trial court may have erred when it concluded that it did not have the authority to "bluepencil" or narrow the scope of this non-compete covenant pursuant to OCGA § 13-8-54(b), such as to limit the…”
Fab’rik Boutique, Inc. v. Shops Around Lenox, Inc, 763 S.E.2d 492 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “(Because the parties entered into the lease before May 11, 2011, the 2011 act revising the law related to restrictive covenants, with its provision on judicial modification of restrictive covenants, does not apply here.”
Belt Power, LLC v. Steve Reed (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 8× “) OCGA § 13-8-54 (b). Taken together, the clear and plain language of these two provisions compels a conclusion that any agreement that meets the Act’s definition of restrictive covenant, and is otherwise not excepted from the Act’s provisions, is subject to the terms of the Act…”
North Am. Senior Benefits, LLC v. Alisha Wimmer (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “…covenant not in compliance with [OCGA §§ 13-8-50 through 13-8-59] is unlawful and is void and unenforceable”); OCGA § 13-8-54 (b) (“[i]n any action concerning enforcement of a restrictive covenant, a court shall not enforce a restrictive covenant unless it is in…”
Am. Plumbing Professionals, Inc. v. Servestar, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 13-8-54 (a). Pursuant to the RCA, “enforcement of contracts that restrict competition during the term of a restrictive covenant, so long as such restrictions are reasonable in time, geographic area, and scope of prohibited activities, shall be permitted.”
Gallagher Benefit Servs., Inc. v. Campbell (N.D. Ga. 2021). · cites it 4× “48 Moreover, the Court 48 To the extent the text of O.C.G.A. § 13-8-54(a) is ambiguous, the Court must apply Georgia’s rules of statutory interpretation.”
AmSpec, LLC v. Calhoun (S.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 4× “Additionally, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-54(b) provides, In any action concerning enforcement of a restrictive covenant, a court shall not enforce a restrictive covenant unless it is in compliance with the provisions of Code Section 13-8-53; provided, however, that if a court finds that a…”
Falcon Ridge, Inc. v. Michael Leon (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 13-8-54 (a). Pursuant to the GRCA, restrictive covenants in employment contracts are permitted and enforceable if they are reasonable in time, geographic area, and scope of prohibited activities.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— 13-8-54(a) — 2 cases
Gallagher Benefit Servs., Inc. v. Campbell (N.D. Ga. 2021). “48 Moreover, the Court 48 To the extent the text of O.C.G.A. § 13-8-54(a) is ambiguous, the Court must apply Georgia’s rules of statutory interpretation.”
Pence (M.D. Ga. 2025).
— 13-8-54(b) — 5 cases
Carpetcare Multiservices, LLC v. Carle., 819 S.E.2d 894 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). “" 1 If there needed to be a geographic limitation, then I also believe the trial court may have erred when it concluded that it did not have the authority to "bluepencil" or narrow the scope of this non-compete covenant pursuant to OCGA § 13-8-54(b), such as to limit the…”
AmSpec, LLC v. Calhoun (S.D. Ga. 2022). “Additionally, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-54(b) provides, In any action concerning enforcement of a restrictive covenant, a court shall not enforce a restrictive covenant unless it is in compliance with the provisions of Code Section 13-8-53; provided, however, that if a court finds that a…”
Gallagher Benefit Servs., Inc. v. Campbell (N.D. Ga. 2021). “48 Moreover, the Court 48 To the extent the text of O.C.G.A. § 13-8-54(a) is ambiguous, the Court must apply Georgia’s rules of statutory interpretation.”
Motorsports of Conyers, LLC v. Edmund Burbach (Ga. Ct. App. 2026).
FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Secretariat Advisors, LLC (N.D. Ga. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.