Michael D. Peck (Plaintiff) and his counsel, Robert P. McFarland, Sr., have brought a class action lawsuit against Lanier Golf Club, Inc. (Defendant). Plaintiff is attempting to establish that all 121 adjacent property owners to Lanier Golf Club (Golf Course) should have an implied easement. If this relief is granted, it would prevent the development of the Golf Course for other uses. 

Plaintiff’s motion for class certification is based on the fact that the proposed class is so numerous that a joinder of all members is impracticable, there are common questions of law and fact, and his claims are typical of the claims of the entire class. He certified to the court that he would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the entire class. 

Plaintiff has argued to the court that when each member of the class purchased their lots, the Golf Course was a material part of the value of their property, was the principal incentive for the purchase, and that they paid a premium value for their lots. 

Paul Baron, Randall Bassett, Charles Pratt, Gerald Buran, Jack Waters, Jeffrey Hayes, John Allen, Gerry Sullivan, and Martina Power have all filed affidavits in support of this class action. Defendant’s counsel has conducted a deposition of each of these witnesses, as well as Jim Quinn, Carol McGregor, and Michael Peck himself. Plaintiff’s counsel has deposed Jack Manton and George Bagley. 

On March 25, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a Pre-Hearing Brief which can be viewed under the Summary section of this web site. On April 16, 2008, Judge Albert Pickett conducted an all-day hearing which was to be limited to the issue of class certification. However, just before the hearing, the Defendant filed a motion to limit testimony at the hearing to Plaintiff’s standing to even bring the action. As the hearing progressed, the court ruled on this issue and stated that the Plaintiff had met the test for being the class representative and that he was suitable. Defendant’s counsel argued that this was an improper decision. 

The court did entertain some argument on the ultimate issue in the case. The Plaintiff cited Forsyth County v. Martin, 279 Ga 215 (2005) which is a case that clearly set forth the rights of adjacent homeowners in a lake in Forsyth County: ... the plaintiffs established they purchased their lots according to a subdivision plat which had a lake area designated on it and paid more for their lakefront lots than the purchase price for nonlakefront lots, thereby acquiring an irrevocable easement in the lake (emphasis mine). 

Plaintiff argued that if the holding in the Martin Case is extended to a golf course, then there would be controlling authority in Georgia on this issue. The Plaintiff cited a 1972 case from New Mexico that supported their position: Ute Park Summer Homes Assn v. Maxwell Land Grant Co, N.M., a 1984 case from Arizona, Shalimar Ass’n v. D.O.C. Enterprises, Ltd, 142 Ariz. 36, and finally a 2006 bankruptcy case from South Carolina, In re T 2 Green, LLC, 363 B.R. 753. 

The main issue that is in the breast of the court at this time is the decision on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. On June 4, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a 15-page Post-Hearing Brief which can also be viewed under the Summary section of this web site. Defendant should file their response before the end of June, then the Plaintiff will then be allowed a short time to file a Reply Brief. The Plaintiff estimates that the court would be in a position to decide this issue by the middle of the summer. Then the court may adjust the schedule for the remainder of the trial.