Del Lago Ventures, Inc

v. QuikTrip Corp., 330 Ga. App. 138, 764 S.E.2d 595, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 820 (2014). Disputes concerning ownership of or right of access to land. — Because a club’s possession of certain real property did not eliminate the need for direction to resolve an on-going conflict over a buyer’s re-entry rights to the property, declaratory judgment was an available remedy for the club. Smith v. Jones, 278 Ga. 661, 604 S.E.2d 187, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 849 (2004). Lease dispute. — Owner of leased facilities was not prohibited from seeking a declaratory judgment against a corporation regarding the rights of the parties to written leases for the facilities on the basis that the owner had already executed a lease with a new tenant and filed dispossessory actions against the corporation; the dispossessory actions against the corporation were stayed pending the outcome of the declaratory judgment action, and the corporation remained in possession of the facilities. Mariner Healthcare, Inc. v. Foster, 280 Ga. App. 406, 634 S.E.2d 162, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 867 (2006), cert. denied, No. S06C2005, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 798 (Ga. Oct. 2, 2006). Obligations under loans and security deeds. — Summary judgment was improperly denied to the lender on the borrowers’ declaratory judgment claim as the obligations under the loans and security deeds were set forth on the face of each document and the borrowers did not show the need of any direction from the trial court with respect to the borrower’s future conduct. Oconee Fed. S&L Ass’n v. Brown, 351 Ga. App. 561, 831 S.E.2d 222, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 444 (2019), cert. dismissed, No. S20C0074, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 201 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2020). Challenge to the validity of administrative rule. — Challenge to a rule of 9-4-2 the Composite State Board of Medical Examiners (now Georgia Composite Medical Board) arising from the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the complainant could not be the subject of declaratory relief because the issues raised were purely hypothetical and there was no justiciable controversy. Burton v. Composite State Bd. of Med. Examin’rs, 245 Ga. App. 587, 538 S.E.2d 501, 2000 Ga. App. LEXIS 1025 (2000). Petition by administrative agency. — Petition of the State Highway Board (now Board of Transportation) for a declaratory judgment which shows a pressing need in an important matter pertaining to the board’s right in the construction of a highway, and that there is an actual controversy and justiciable issue in reference to such matter set forth a cause for the relief prayed. Woodside v. State Hwy. Dep’t, 216 Ga. 254, 115 S.E.2d 560, 1960 Ga. LEXIS 439 (1960). Declaratory judgment improper after administrative appeal. — Appellants, once having invoked their right of appeal to the city personnel board, could not thereafter properly seek a declaratory judgment. Wooten v. City of Atlanta, 149 Ga. App. 568, 254 S.E.2d 889, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1936 (1979). Payment of legal fees incurred by county solicitor. — In county solicitor’s declaratory judgment action against a county to declare the solicitor’s entitlement to reimbursement from the county for legal fees the solicitor had already expended, there was no actual controversy under O.C.G.A. § 9-4-2(a) and no justiciable controversy existed under § 9-42(b) since the fees were already incurred and, when the trial court addressed the issue, the court had already found the solicitor had no right to compel the county to pay the fees. Gwinnett County v. Blaney, 275 Ga. 696, 572 S.E.2d 553, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 1032 (2002). Condemnation proceedings. — Petition for a declaratory judgment should be denied when the petition is filed after a condemnation case has proceeded to an award by the master, payment into court by the condemnor of the amount awarded by the master, a judgment decreeing title to the lands described in the petition to be 417 Miscellaneous (Cont’d) in the condemnor, and appeals by both parties to a jury therein. Johnson v. Fulton County, 216 Ga. 498, 117 S.E.2d 155, 1960 Ga. LEXIS 514 (1960). When every relief sought by a petition for declaratory judgment pertained to matters involved in a condemnation case, and the court in the condemnation case had jurisdiction to adjudicate every question raised, the court erred in denying a motion to dismiss the petition, which motion was based on the ground that every question raised should have been presented in the condemnation case. Johnson v. Fulton County, 216 Ga. 498, 117 S.E.2d 155, 1960 Ga. LEXIS 514 (1960). Power company was properly granted declaratory relief and an injunction against the property owners who would not permit the power company access to their land to conduct surveys for a planned electrical transmission line because the power company, as the condemning body, had the right to survey and the property owners’ express refusal to allow access presented an actual risk of a breach of the peace that was alleviated by the entry of the declaratory judgment. Bearden v. Ga. Power Co., 262 Ga. App. 550, 586 S.E.2d 10, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 814 (2003), cert. denied, No. S03C1804, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 30 (Ga. Jan. 12, 2004). Land disturbance permits. — In a declaratory judgment action brought by a developer against a county seeking to invalidate an ordinance which required denial of the developer’s land disturbance permit based on two soil-related ordinance violations existing, the judgment in favor of the developer was upheld on appeal with regard to the developer’s claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for alleged violations of the developer’s equal protection rights in the county’s enforcement of the ordinance. The trial court properly determined that the developer was not required to prove a valid property right with regard to the developer’s equal protection challenge; the trial court properly awarded attorney fees to the developer under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 as the jury was authorized to award the attorney fees as an element of the damages the jury 9-4-2 awarded on the developer’s federal equal protection claim, regardless of whether the developer could prevail on any state law claim for damages; but the trial court erred by failing to address the merits of the developer’s petition for a declaratory judgment since the overall enforceability of the ordinance, which was still the law, was not rendered moot by the withdrawal notice. Fulton County v. Legacy Inv. Group, LLC, 296 Ga. App. 822, 676 S.E.2d 388, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 332 (2009). Validity of proposed annexation. — City’s declaratory judgment action seeking to determine the validity of a proposed annexation, to which the county objected based on a local constitutional amendment creating the industrial district sought to be annexed which prohibited annexation, presented no justiciable controversy because the annexation was merely proposed. Fulton County v. City of Atlanta, 299 Ga. 676, 791 S.E.2d 821, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 596 (2016). Construction of contracts. — When a contract is so plain and unambiguous as not to be susceptible to any logical construction except its unmistakable mandate, there is no need of a declaratory judgment. Vandiver v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 222 F. Supp. 731, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6647 (M.D. Ga. 1963). In a declaratory judgment action between a settlor’s offspring regarding an agreement signed by the settlor to reform a trust, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to one sibling over the other, upholding the agreement as validly reforming the trust in order to fully effectuate the settlor’s intent that the offspring divide the remainder of a trust’s proceeds equally between them, per stirpes; moreover, the trial court correctly ruled that the prevailing sibling could not rely on the defenses of laches and unclean hands as such were equitable doctrines not applicable in a declaratory judgment action. Briden v. Clement, 283 Ga. App. 626, 642 S.E.2d 318, 2007 Ga. App. LEXIS 141 (2007). Drainage disputes. — Homeowners established entitlement to declaratory judgment since there was evidence that drainage pipes running through the prop- 418 erty were not maintained properly and resulted in flooding of the homeowner’s property but there was a dispute as to who was responsible for maintaining the pipes. Macko v. City of Lawrenceville, 231 Ga. App. 671, 499 S.E.2d 707. Employment agreements. — Action seeking a declaratory judgment that restrictive covenants in an employment agreement were unenforceable presented a justiciable case or controversy. Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. v. Pokalsky, 227 Ga. App. 727, 490 S.E.2d 136. Trial court erroneously declared that a non-solicitation covenant between a group of employees and their former employer was unenforceable as overbroad, and the Court of Appeals wrongfully upheld that decision, addressing only the lack of any restriction placed on the period of time during which the employees served the former employer’s customers, because the covenant was narrowly limited to those customers served by the employees during their terms of employment; hence, it was not overbroad merely because it provided no time restriction on the provision of services to the former employer’s customers. Palmer & Cay of Ga., Inc. v. Lockton Cos., 280 Ga. 479, 629 S.E.2d 800, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 259 (2006). In a removed action seeking a declaration as to the enforceability of a noncompete provision, a corporation was not fraudulently joined as a plaintiff in order to avoid complete diversity, warranting a remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447, because under O.C.G.A. § 9-4-2(b) state courts were authorized to entertain declaratory actions brought by any interested party whether or not further relief was or could have been prayed when the ends of justice required that the declaration should be made, and the court could not say with certainty that the corporation was not a real party in interest. Campbell v. Quixtar, Inc., No. 2:08-CV0045-RWS, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46507 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2008). Requirements for application of the declaratory judgment statute, O.C.G.A. § 94-2, were met in a case involving a new employer bringing suit against the former employer seeking a declaration as to the legal effect of the non-compete covenants 9-4-2 between the former employer and the former employees, thus, the new employer had standing to seek a declaration as to the legal effect of the non-compete covenants in the employment agreements. Lapolla Indus. v. Hess, 325 Ga. App. 256, 750 S.E.2d 467, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 926 (2013), cert. denied, No. S14C0459, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 230 (Ga. Mar. 10, 2014). In a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration as to the enforceability of non-compete clauses in an employment contract, the trial court properly granted the competitor judgment on the pleadings because the court correctly found that the pleadings showed that the lack of any limit on the scope of the restricted work or the solicitation of former customers were void and unenforceable under the nonseverability rule as a matter of law. Lapolla Indus. v. Hess, 325 Ga. App. 256, 750 S.E.2d 467, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 926 (2013), cert. denied, No. S14C0459, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 230 (Ga. Mar. 10, 2014). Suit for declaratory judgment cannot be maintained by person accused of crime when the alleged criminal conduct has already taken place. Ross v. State, 238 Ga. 445, 233 S.E.2d 381, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1056 (1977). Actions for declaratory judgment are not maintainable by persons already convicted of crimes who wish to examine or reexamine aspects of the conviction or sentence for the reasons that the controversy has been adjudicated, and the rights and relations have become fixed. Ross v. State, 238 Ga. 445, 233 S.E.2d 381, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1056 (1977). Authority of state court judge to appoint county officers. — Justiciable controversy existed between a county and a state court judge concerning the judge’s authority to appoint county officers and order funds withheld from the county treasury. Cramer v. Spalding County, 261 Ga. 570, 409 S.E.2d 30, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 423 (1991). Applicability to divorce decree. — Declaratory judgment is an appropriate means of ascertaining one’s rights and duties under a contract and decree of divorce. Royal v. Royal, 246 Ga. 229, 271 S.E.2d 144, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 1064 (1980). Construing language of divorce decree. — Language in 1960 divorce decree “setting aside” property “to” wife “for the 419 Miscellaneous (Cont’d) purpose of making a home for herself and the children” was ambiguous and unclear as to whether the language was intended to confer fee simple title to the property or some limited estate, and consequently, a construction of the effect of this language would be a proper subject of a declaratory judgment action. Royal v. Royal, 246 Ga. 229, 271 S.E.2d 144, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 1064 (1980). Wife did not file a declaratory judgment action since the wife sought guidance with respect to provisions in a settlement agreement in order to compel a husband to provide the wife with additional funds as the trial court’s decision was interlocutory and the wife did not secure a certificate of immediate review, the discretionary appeal to resolve whether the trial court’s declaratory ruling was appealable as a final judgment was dismissed. Gelfand v. Gelfand, 281 Ga. 40, 635 S.E.2d 770, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 642 (2006). Declaratory judgment improper when relief sought is cancellation of divorce decree. — When the petitioner sought in the superior court to obtain a judgment declaring void a divorce decree rendered against her in an action between her former husband, now deceased, and herself, and declaring that she is the widow and lawful heir of the deceased, and entitled to be the administratrix of his estate; and the petition shows the rendition of judgments by courts having jurisdiction of the subject matter and parties and under which the rights in question were conclusively and finally adjudicated against the plaintiff; and the judgment of the superior court denying, after a hearing, the petitioner’s application to intervene in the proceeding and be appointed administratrix of the estate, the petitioner was not entitled to a declaratory judgment in the premises. Lawrence v. Lawrence, 87 Ga. App. 150, 73 S.E.2d 231, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 633 (1952). When the real relief and only substantial relief sought is the cancellation of the divorce decree, the facts alleged in the petition do not present a question that can be properly decided under the provisions of the Declaratory Judgment Act (Ga. L. 9-4-2 1945, p. 137). Burgess v. Burgess, 210 Ga. 380, 80 S.E.2d 280, 1954 Ga. LEXIS 314 (1954). Marital status. — Petition alleging that the defendant falsely claimed to have entered into a ceremonial marriage with the plaintiff and that he was the father of her child, and that she caused to be issued a warrant accusing him of abandonment of the child, failed to state a cause of action for a declaratory judgment to establish that the plaintiff and the defendant were not husband and wife. Gibbs v. Forrester, 204 Ga. 545, 50 S.E.2d 318, 1948 Ga. LEXIS 472 (1948). Support obligations. — As a former spouse planned to continue denying the second former spouse’s claim of back child support based on the first spouse’s understanding of an unclear divorce decree’s formula for calculating increases in the first spouse’s support obligation, but doing so subjected the first spouse to contempt charges, the first spouse properly filed a declaratory judgment action under Georgia’s Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, O.C.G.A. § 9-4-1 et seq. Acevedo v. Kim, 284 Ga. 629, 669 S.E.2d 127, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 870 (2008). Construction of parenting plan. — Trial court erred in denying the mother’s request for declaratory judgment because the provision in the parenting plan regarding summer vacation provided that each parent may select two consecutive weeks of uninterrupted parenting time during the children’s summer vacation and did not allow up to 14 additional days of non-consecutive time. Brown v. Brown, 359 Ga. App. 511, 857 S.E.2d 505, 2021 Ga. App. LEXIS 195 (2021). Railroad corporation. — Superior court had jurisdiction to provide declaratory relief to a railroad corporation in an appeal from a decision of the Public Service Commission denying the corporation’s application to modify its staff at a service facility. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. CSX Transp., Inc., 225 Ga. App. 787, 484 S.E.2d 799. Effect on prior existing landlord remedies. — Law does not nullify the rights, remedies and penalties in favor of landlords already accruing under dispossessory warrants law when the tenant is 420 already in default. Shippen v. Folsom, 200 Ga. 58, 35 S.E.2d 915, 1945 Ga. LEXIS 396 (1945). Possession of building. — When there is a controversy as to who is entitled to possession of a building on a specified date, there is a case for a declaratory judgment. Greene v. Golucke, 202 Ga. 494, 43 S.E.2d 497, 1947 Ga. LEXIS 450 (1947). Determination of the rights of the parties to a lease agreement is a proper subject for relief under O.C.G.A. § 9-4-1 et seq. Cook Farms, Inc. v. Bostwick, 165 Ga. App. 692, 302 S.E.2d 574, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1989 (1983). Taxation. — State could not hold out what plainly appeared to be a “clear and certain” postdeprivation remedy and then declare, only after the disputed taxes had been paid, that no such remedy existed. Reich v. Collins, 513 U.S. 106, 115 S. Ct. 547, 130 L. Ed. 2d 454, 1994 U.S. LEXIS 8789 (1994). Trial court erred by dismissing a city’s declaratory judgment action against several online travel companies for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the appellate court erred by affirming the dismissal,as the issue of whether the city’s ordinance allowing the city to collect a hotel occupancy tax from the online travel companies was a contested issue in the matter that neither lower court had determined. The legal question of whether the ordinance even applied to the online travel companies had to be determined before the city was required to submit to the administrative process set forth within the ordinance and the Enabling Statutes, O.C.G.A. § 48-13-50 et seq. City of Atlanta v. Hotels.com, L.P., 285 Ga. 231, 674 S.E.2d 898, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 96 (2009). Trial court granted an impermissible advisory opinion when the court granted a second city’s request for a declaratory judgment that the second city was authorized to impose and collect taxes on the sale, storage, and distribution of alcoholic beverages at an airport within that city’s limits because the second city failed to show that there was any justiciable controversy; the first city conceded that, under Georgia’s Alcoholic Beverages Code, O.C.G.A. § 3-8-1(e), only the second city 9-4-2 was authorized to impose and collect taxes on the sale, storage, and distribution of alcoholic beverages at the airport within the city’s limits and that the first city had to refund any alcoholic beverage taxes that the city received in error for the sale, storage, and distribution of alcohol in portions of the airport located within the corporate boundaries of the second city. City of Atlanta v. City of College Park, 311 Ga. App. 62, 715 S.E.2d 158, 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 548 (2011), aff’d, 292 Ga. 741, 741 S.E.2d 147, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 316 (2013). Existence of agreement to sell property. — When the vendor of property denied the existence of any agreement to sell the property and asserted control over the property which was inconsistent with the buyer’s claimed contractual rights, this case presented a proper matter for a declaration as to the existence and effect of such an agreement. Stephens v. Trotter, 213 Ga. App. 596, 445 S.E.2d 359, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 686 (1994). Violation of Open Meetings Act. — In an action against an airport authority for violations of the Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et seq., the taxpayers did not seek to contest any decisions made at any of the challenged meetings or assert that the taxpayers were in a position of uncertainty as to an alleged right, but sought to prohibit future violations and punish the authority for the authority’s violations; dismissal of the taxpayers’ claim for declaratory relief was proper. Avery v. Paulding County Airport Auth., 343 Ga. App. 832, 808 S.E.2d 15, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 566 (2017). Constitutionality of county ordinance. — Trial court correctly found that declaratory relief was appropriate to relieve an electrical transmission corporation of uncertainty and insecurity with regard to its rights after a county board of commission enacted an ordinance that imposed a moratorium on the construction of new power lines, since the ordinance expressly targeted the very power line proposed by the corporation and plainly prohibited the construction of that line or similar ones. If the corporation could not have obtained declaratory relief, it would have been in danger of losing a valuable 421 Miscellaneous (Cont’d) property right as a result of the enforcement of the ordinance which was declared to be unconstitutional. Cobb County v. Ga. Transmission Corp., 276 Ga. 367, 578 S.E.2d 852, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 285 (2003). Lack of actual controversy when city sued over sidewalks. — Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment stating that a city was prohibited from installing sidewalks. As the city never began construction of the sidewalks and asserted that the city had no plans to do so, there was no actual controversy within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 9-4-2(a); therefore, the plaintiffs did not have standing to raise a claim under the Georgia Declaratory Judgment Act, O.C.G.A. § 9-4-1 et seq. Bailey v. City of Atlanta, 296 Ga. App. 679, 675 S.E.2d 564, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 306 (2009). County’s action against an airport authority. — County’s action against an airport authority seeking a declaration that the authority lacked the authority to submit an application to the Federal Aviation Administration for an Airport Operating Certificate without the county’s consent stated an actual controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act, O.C.G.A. § 9-4-1 et seq., and should not have been dismissed. Avery v. Paulding County Airport Auth., 343 Ga. App. 832, 808 S.E.2d 15, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 566 (2017). Probationer’s claim for declaratory judgment on bond issue. — Trial court correctly dismissed a former probationer’s claim for declaratory judgment, in which the probationer sought a declaration that an insurance policy satisfied the statutory bond requirements for officers under O.C.G.A. § 42-8-26(d), because a resolution as to whether the officer was properly bonded for damages caused by the officer’s misfeasance was of no consequence until a judgment was obtained against the officer for such conduct and the probationer was entitled to collect damages. Walker v. Owens, 298 Ga. 516, 783 S.E.2d 114, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 164 (2016). Actions by pension fund administrators. — In a case in which the pension fund participants, the board members, and the advocates sought a declaration 9-4-2 allowing the pension funds to hire a third party administrator and an outside counsel, an actual controversy existed pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-4-2(a), (b) with regard to the two funds that had already hired third party administrators and outside counsel; the City of Atlanta had refused to recognize, honor, cooperate with, or implement the decisions of the pension funds to hire third party administrators and outside counsel. City of Atlanta v. S. States Police Benevolent Ass’n, 276 Ga. App. 446, 623 S.E.2d 557, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 1282 (2005), cert. denied, No. S06C0609, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 314 (Ga. May 8, 2006). Counterclaim. — In an interpleader action by a bank against a depositor and the depositor’s assignee with respect to funds in bank accounts, the assignee’s counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the bank’s setoff against one of the accounts was improper presented a justiciable controversy and the trial court could consider the counterclaim. Bank of Spalding County v. Pound, 213 Ga. App. 324, 444 S.E.2d 375, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 555 (1994), cert. denied, No. S94C1385, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 998 (Ga. Sept. 22, 1994). Challenging failure to designate a location as a voter registration site. — Complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the acts and policies of the local board of registrars in not designating the plaintiff-church as a voter registration site were illegal was properly dismissed as (1) mandamus, used to compel official action when a public official has discretion to act, but arbitrarily and capriciously refuses to do so, was the appropriate remedy; and (2) nothing in O.C.G.A. § 21-2218(f) (voter registration places) required that churches be designated as voter registration sites. Fourth St. Baptist Church v. Board of Registrars, 253 Ga. 368, 320 S.E.2d 543, 1984 Ga. LEXIS 951 (1984). County lacked standing to challenge the state’s rules restricting emissions of volatile compounds; while the county presented evidence that the rules might deter some investment in the county, there was no evidence that the rules had actually done so, and whether any economic harm to its own emission sources would be caused by the rules was speculative. Bd. of Natural Res. of Ga. v. 422 Monroe County, 252 Ga. App. 555, 556 S.E.2d 834, 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 1340 (2001), cert. denied, No. S02C0503, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 300 (Ga. Mar. 29, 2002). Authority of chairperson of county board of commissioners. — Based on the authority granted under Ga. L. 1984, p. 3815, § VIII, the chairperson of a county board of commissioners was authorized to hire and fire county employees without the approval of the board as the power to do so was reasonably necessary for the chairperson to carry out the expressed authority to administer, supervise, operate, and control the county departments, agencies, and offices; thus, the trial court erred in denying the chairperson declaratory relief regarding the personnel. Duggan v. Leslie, 281 Ga. App. 894, 637 S.E.2d 428, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 1158 (2006). General contractor’s obligations under bond. — In the general contractor’s declaratory judgment action against the materials provider in which the general contractor sought a declaration as to its rights with regard to a payment bond claim filed by the provider, the action was justiciable under O.C.G.A. § 9-4-2(a); the general contractor faced uncertainty as to the legal effect of the payment bond and as to the specific amount the provider had sent forth in its notice to the contractor, and the general contractor needed direction on these issues to determine whether it had to take additional steps to secure a different type of payment bond in order to properly discharge the provider’s lien and so that it could clarify its potential indemnification obligations and/or liability to the retailer for whom the construction was being performed. Sierra Craft, Inc. v. T. D. Farrell Constr., Inc., 282 Ga. App. 377, 638 S.E.2d 815, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 1398 (2006), cert. denied, No. S07C0460, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 145 (Ga. Feb. 5, 2007). Beneficiary’s challenge to will provision. — Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-42(c), a beneficiary of a will who wished to remove the executor, and who contended that a will provision restricting the beneficiary’s right to alienate a fee simple estate was invalid, could seek a declaratory judgment even if the beneficiary had other adequate legal or equitable rem- 9-4-2 edies. Bandy v. Henderson, 284 Ga. 692, 670 S.E.2d 792, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 1023 (2008). Suit to compel release of medical records. — Surviving spouse sued a nursing home for wrongful death and sought a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction requiring the home to release the decedent’s medical records, as well as a judgment under O.C.G.A. § 9-4-2 declaring her legal entitlement to such records. As the spouse sought injunctive relief in a case involving an actual controversy, the suit was an appropriate case for a declaratory judgment. Alvista Healthcare Ctr., Inc. v. Miller, 296 Ga. App. 133, 673 S.E.2d 637, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 147, aff’d on other grounds, 286 Ga. 122, 686 S.E.2d 96, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 679 (2009). Suit for access to court records. — Law firm that sought copies of a court reporter’s recordings of hearings in two criminal cases was not entitled to a declaratory judgment regarding a trial court’s order denying the request for copies because the Declaratory Judgment Act, O.C.G.A. § 9-4-1 et seq., was not intended to be used to set aside or modify judicial decrees. Merch. Law Firm, P.C. v. Emerson, 301 Ga. 609, 800 S.E.2d 557, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 438 (2017). Declaratory judgment not available in action to enforce attorney’s lien. — Under the right-for-any-reason rule, the trial court did not err by dismissing a law firm’s case against an insurer under the Declaratory Judgment Act, O.C.G.A. § 94-1, and O.C.G.A. § 15-19-14(b) to enforce the firm’s attorney’s lien in a case the firm filed on behalf of an owner against the insurer because declaratory judgment was not available; the issues the firm raised were the same as those raised in an owner’s case against the insurer for failure to provide a defense, and the rights of the parties in the owner’s case had already accrued. McRae, Stegall, Peek, Harman, Smith & Manning, LLP v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 316 Ga. App. 526, 729 S.E.2d 649, 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 599 (2012). Declaratory relief in interpretation of property tax statute. — Trial court had jurisdiction over a petition by a 423 9-4-2 360 Ga. App. 807, 861 S.E.2d 649, 2021 Ga. App. LEXIS 394 (2021). Miscellaneous (Cont’d) County Board of Tax Assessors for declaratory relief as to whether and how the Board could, under the 2017 amendment to O.C.G.A. § 48-5-2(3)(B)(vii), consider low income housing tax credits awarded to taxpayers under 26 U.S.C. § 42 when assessing taxes on low-income housing. Heron Lake II Apartments, LP v. Lowndes County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 306 Ga. 816, 833 S.E.2d 528, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 627 (2019). Gun permit ruling advisory. — In a suit against a probate court judge, the trial court’s grant of the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory judgment on the ground that a ruling would be advisory was affirmed because the plaintiffs faced no imminent or actual threat of an injury and, in a few years, the plaintiffs would again apply for the carry permits and whether the probate court judge would issue the permits again were hypothetical questions based on a possible future event. Georgiacarry.org v. Bordeaux, State Patrol Officer Entitled to Sovereign Immunity. Declaratory judgment improperly denied when agreement not properly terminated. — Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the appellee on the appellee’s counterclaim for breach of the subordination agreement (SA) as the SA did not bar the appellant from bringing the current lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the management services agreement (MSA) as the MSA remained in effect with respect to the appellant, and management fees continued to accrue to the appellant, as the MSA was not properly terminated as to the appellant because it was not terminated by mutual consent of the parties; thus, the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s claim for declaratory judgment. GAPIII, Inc. v. Seal Indus., 338 Ga. App. 101, 789 S.E.2d 321, 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 434 (2016).