Consolidated Pretrial Order.Sweatman V Zeeman¶

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

CONSOLIDATED PRE-TRIAL ORDER The following constitutes a Pre Trial Order entered in the above styled case after a conference with counsel for the parties: 1.

The name, address, and phone number of the attorneys for the Parties who will conduct the trial are as follows:

Attorney Plaintiff Jonathan Sweatman: 
Lisa K. Rose
Georgia Bar Number 614204
Rose Litigation, LLC
4880 Lower Roswell Road
Suite 165-522
Marietta, Georgia 30068

Attorneys for Jonathan Sweatman as Counterclaim Defendant:
Timothy L. Mitchell
Georgia Bar No. 460744
Chelsea T. Cooke
Georgia Bar Number 209502
Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet, LLP
Meridian II
Suite 2000
275 Scientific Drive
Peachtree Corners, Georgia 30092

Attorneys for Sarah Zeeman:

Jeff Banks P.O. Box 2719 Kennesaw, Georgia 30156 (678) 797-6364 jeffsbanks@hotmail.com

Brett Michael-Schiff Ledermeier 11625 Rainwater Drive Ste 125 Alpharetta, GA 30009
Direct: 404.365.4564 Main: 770.200.7000 bledermeier@mmatllaw.com

2.

The estimated time required for trial is:

Sweatman: 3 days

Zeeman: 2 days

3. There are no motions or other matters pending for consideration by the court except for the following:

For Sweatman:
Sweatman filed two separate motions to compel that are still pending and seek documents from Zeeman and Zeeman’s expert witness Lee Webb.  Zeeman recently produced the requested documents after the deposition of Webb.  Sweatman shall withdraw his motion to compel seeking documents against Zeeman. Sweatman’s second motion to compel as to Zeeman’s expert witness Mr. Webb seeks the opportunity to re-depose Mr. Webb regarding his requested documents not produced at the time of his original deposition. Sweatman reserves the right to submit motions in limine according to Court deadlines to ensure the orderly presentation of this case at trial. 
For Zeeman: Zeeman expects to file motions in limine prior to trial;

Both parties have requested that the other update and supplements their discovery responses. 4. The jury will be qualified as to relationship with the following: According to Sweatman: For the Parties: Relationship by blood or marriage to: Jonathan Sweatman Sarah Zeeman Attorneys of record Anyone with a financial interest in the outcome of the case.

According to Zeeman:
Jonathan Sweatman Sarah Zeeman Travelers Insurance Stewart Title Guaranty 5.

All discovery has been completed, unless otherwise noted, and the court will not consider any further motions to compel discovery except for good cause shown. The parties, however, shall be permitted to take depositions of any person(s) for the preservation of evidence for use at trial.

Sweatman: Sweatman filed a Motion to Compel the deposition of Lee Webb to which remain pending. Sweatman objects to Zeeman filing additional motions and introducing any evidence that was not identified or exchanged during discovery. Sweatman reserves the right to depose any witnesses listed in this Pre-Trial Order but not previously identified if the Court permits them to testify.

Zeeman: Some of Sweatman’s responses to discovery stated that documents would be provided at a later date. Zeeman has requested that he supplement his discovery and anything not produced prior to trial be excluded from evidence.

Unless otherwise noted, the names of the parties as shown in the caption to this order are correct and complete and there is no question by any party as to the misjoinder or nonjoinder of any parties.

Sweatman: Not applicable.

Zeeman: Not applicable.

6. The following is Sweatman 's brief and succinct outline of the case and contentions:

Plaintiff Jonathan Sweatman, the owner of Lot 2, filed this lawsuit against his adjacent neighbor Sarah Zeeman, owner of Lot 1, regarding Ms. Zeeman’s improvements, two HVAC units, a garden window and a warped deck post that are located on Mr. Sweatman’s property. In late 2019 and early 2020, Mr. Sweatman and Ms. Zeeman discussed sharing the costs to replace a section of a wooden fence that ran parallel to the common boundary line. The neighbors agreed to obtain and share quotes from different companies. In the interim, Mr. Sweatman and his contractors worked on developing plans to renovate and convert his deck to a covered porch. Mr. Sweatman also took steps to replace the fence around his property.
In 2020, in connection with his plans for the conversion of the screened in porch, Mr. Sweatman commissioned Survey Land Express, Inc. to prepare a survey of Lot 2. In reviewing the Sweatman Survey, Mr. Sweatman discovered the location of the original fence had been mistakenly placed on his property, Lot 2. Mr. Sweatman approached Ms. Zeeman in late 2020 and/or early 2021, to discuss the new location for the fence. Specifically, Mr. Sweatman intended to place the new fence 2 feet and 8 inches closer to the boundary line, within the boundary of Lot 2 per the Sweatman Surveys. In May, 2021, Ms. Zeeman disputed the location of the new fence and mentioned she owned a portion of Lot 2 by virtue of adverse possession, for the first time. On August 7, 2021, with Ms. Zeeman’s consent, Mr. Sweatman removed the fence and disposed of the debris. He also removed the perimeter fence around Lot 2.
Prior to filing suit, Mr. Sweatman offered Ms. Zeeman (more than a dozen times verbally and many times in writing) for the parties to enter into a boundary line and/or easement encroachment agreement, in an effort to resolve Ms. Zeeman’s improvements that encroached onto his property and the fence dispute. Ms. Zeeman refused to discuss an encroachment agreement. Thereafter, early October, 2021, Mr. Sweatman constructed and installed a new fence on his property, located approximately 2 feet 2 inches, closer to the boundary line, all within Lot 2. During the course of his renovations to convert his former deck to a screened-in porch and construction of an entire replacement fence around the perimeter of his lot (all properly permitted and approved through the City of Brookhaven and DeKalb County Department of Watershed Management) Ms. Zeeman contacted code enforcement and local police on multiple occasions, complaining of Mr. Sweatman’s alleged trespass and/or violations of city code. While the City of Brookhaven did issue a Stop Work Order on October 8, 2021, it was promptly removed on October 12, 2021. Furthermore, the City never issued a citation or levied a fine; instead, the City approved his permits and subsequently issued a Certificate of Completion. Moreover, during the entire construction, Mr. Sweatman informed his contractors not to step foot on Ms. Zeeman’s property. He also ran bright orange strings from corner iron pin to iron corner pin, along the wooden stakes installed by his surveyor, down the common boundary line to ensure that he and his contractors always remained on Mr. Sweatman’s lot. While Ms. Zeeman has a video of Mr. Sweatman’s contractor accidentally stepping onto her property, this was an isolated incident.
As a result of Ms. Zeeman’s refusal to address her improvements that extend over onto Mr. Sweatman’s property, he filed this instant lawsuit to resolve the encroachments of Ms. Zeeman’s two HVAC units, garden window and warped deck post. In response to Mr. Sweatman’s Complaint, Ms. Zeeman filed an answer and asserted counterclaims against Mr. Sweatman which include: (1) a claim for declaratory judgment asserting that she adversely possesses a portion of Lot 2 starting 2 feet 8 inches from the back corner rebar pin that marks the common boundary line, then extending past the area of the old fence through the side yard and the front yard leading up to the front boundary pin near the street, all land owned by Mr. Sweatman per his warranty deed; (2) claims for equitable relief, trespass, and nuisance for alleged excess water discharged on Ms. Zeeman’s lot from Mr. Sweatman’s renovations to convert his deck; (3) claims for invasion of privacy stemming from Mr. Sweatman’s exterior lights and camera security system; (4) punitive damages and (5) attorneys’ fees. Mr. Sweatman disputes any and all counterclaims asserted by Ms. Zeeman against Mr. Sweatman. Furthermore, Mr. Sweatman disputes any damage Ms. Zeeman is alleging Mr. Sweatman caused to her property.
7. The following is the Zeeman’s brief and succinct outline of the case and contentions: The Zeeman and Sweatman are neighbors. Their houses were built over 30 years ago. The original builder of the houses installed a privacy fence between the backyards of the homes. Both parties assumed and carried on maintenance of their properties believing and relying upon their beliefs that the fence line was the property line. Each party maintained their side of the perceived property line for a time well in excess of 20 years. Unknown to Ms. Zeeman, Mr. Sweatman was directing his stormwater from his downspouts and yard concentrating on her property which caused her backyard to flood, making it virtually unusable after rains. At some point Mr. Sweatman decided to remove his old fence and build a new fence. When he did so, it revealed the source of the water. When Mr. Sweatman got a permit from the city to rebuild his fence the city required him to get a survey. He had had a survey previously in 1993 but never looked at it closely. This time however, he marked the surveyed boundaries onto the ground and realize that his property line went through Ms. Zeeman’s bay window and through the middle of her air conditioners. For the past several years Mr. Sweatman has violated the privacy of Ms. Zeeman by unlawful surveillance through a network of cameras.
Since over 25 years had elapsed Ms. Zeeman had acquired a property interest in the land that she had been using through prescription or adverse possession. Ignoring that, Mr. Sweatman built the fence right up against her d