I did file a suite which also resulted in the most bizarre view in that the judge was not abele to define what is 'natural" so she resorted to ONLY ONE dictionary definition that says it is something natural belonging to nature without artificial.' She provided no precedent, support for this definition.
I said to my self, if the association says, you can 'stain natural or paint white' and then provide me a covenant that says, 'fence color must be natural or paint white" Such conflicting instruction from which the judge to make a decision and consider the word was clear and unambiguous is disturbing. The second issue I related to you is that a homeowner can pain his fence with a color that matches his outside frame of his house. Which by the way is exactly what I did. FYI the association never challenged at any time the painting of my fence doesn't match my frame. Which by the way do away with the idea of my fence being painted or stained natural.
The judge simply rubber stamped the association summary statement and never analyzed the case with rational and precedent. I would like you to hear your opinion on the previous issue of 'responsibility/duty the association owes to provide clear and unambiguous definition to the homeowner and the last issue I pointed on this note.
I see your rational. My issue is what you alluded which is, "...words in a contract generally bear their usual and common meaning. OCGA § 13-3-2 (2). What is the usual and common meaning of the word, 'natural" and who defines sit as a standard.
Collateral issue is again the phrase you highlighted, "..if the construction is doubtful.." it would be rule against the party enforcing the phrase. Wouldn't it be reasonable to think the word 'natural' is most doubtful particularly confusing when the association in a separate memo sends me to 'stain natural or paint white."
My argument is that when you stain something it never maintains and/or stays natural which I thought I have reasonable way of sustaining the argument that the word natural is not only vague but more frustrated by the association's accompanying memos I described earlier.
My other issue I asked was 'what prevents me to resort to the paint that matches with the exterior of the home' which the covenant allows, t hereby bypassing the need to argue about the fence being painted natural or white.
Again, I want to thank you for your insightful approaches.
From your assessment, I am able to see the judge's discretion is a turning point on this case. I will redirect my argument to highlight the abuse of the judge's discretion both as a matter of law in an area the doctrine is not clear and/or established precedent about the word which carries doubtful meaning.
Again, I think you for your views.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).