Answer Counterclaims Mm Additions¶

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

JONATHAN SWEATMAN, )
) Petitioner, ) ) Civil Action File No. 21CV9795 v. ) ) SARAH ZEEMAN, ) ) Respondent. ) )

VERIFIED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM OF RESPONDENT SARAH ZEEMAN COMES NOW Sarah Zeeman (hereinafter “Zeeman”), respondent in the above-styled case, and files this answer and counterclaim to petitioner Jonathan Sweatman’s petition for equitable relief (“the petition”), respectfully showing the Court as follows: FIRST DEFENSE All or part of the petition fails to state a claim against respondent Zeeman on which relief can be granted. SECOND DEFENSE The cost of removal of the alleged encroachment greatly exceeds any damage to petitioner’s property caused by its continuance. The alleged encroachment does not seriously interfere with petitioner’s use or enjoyment of his property. THIRD DEFENSE Petitioner will not suffer irreparable injury as a result of the continuing presence of the alleged encroachment and petitioner is not entitled to the injunctive relief requested. FOURTH DEFENSE Petitioner’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of estoppel.
FIFTH DEFENSE Respondent, and those under whom respondent claims title, have been in adverse, actual, open, notorious, and continuous adverse possession of the lands described in Paragraph 2 and 7 of the petition, under known and visible lines and boundaries, under color of title, for more than twenty years. Respondent, and those under whom respondent claims title, have been in actual, open, notorious, and continuous adverse possession of the land, under known and visible lines and boundaries, for more than twenty years, all before the institution of this action. Respondent is therefore entitled to be adjudged to own the property in fee, both by virtue of her record title and by adverse possession of the property, as above set forth. SIXTH DEFENSE There is no legal or factual basis for petitioner to recover attorney’s fees or litigation expenses pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11. SEVENTH DEFENSE In seeking an injunction for abatement of the alleged encroachment, petitioner is seeking to protect a technical and unsubstantial right. The alleged nuisance does no irreparable injury to petitioner, but, in fact, creates damages of a de minimus nature which can be fully compensated by monetary damages. The alleged encroachment does not adversely affect any existing use of petitioner’s land. EIGHTH DEFENSE Respondent shows that the Sweatman’s petition for equitable relief fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted in that petitioner has an adequate remedy at law.

NINTH DEFENSE

Zeeman responds to the individually numbered paragraphs of Sweatman’s petition as follows: Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue

The allegations of paragraph 1 of the petition are neither admitted nor denied for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations therein contained.

Respondent admits that she resides at the property address 2740 Grove Street NE, Brookhaven, GA 30319. For further answer, Zeeman prays reference to the plat of survey recorded with DeKalb County, which speaks for itself, and denies all allegations inconsistent therewith.

Parties and Jurisdiction

The allegations of paragraph 3 of the petition are admitted. Factual Background 2746 Grove Street

The allegations of paragraph 4 of the petition are neither admitted nor denied for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations therein contained.

The allegations of paragraph 5 of the petition are neither admitted nor denied for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations therein contained.

The allegations of paragraph 6 of the petition are neither admitted nor denied for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations therein contained. 2740 Grove Street

Respondent admits that she purchased the real property located at 2740 Grove Street on or about May 30, 2006. For further answer, Zeeman prays reference to the Warranty Deed recorded with DeKalb County, which speaks for itself, and denies all allegations inconsistent therewith.

The allegations of paragraph 8 of the petition are admitted.

Respondent admits that her real property, located at 2740 Grove Street, is adjacent to the real property located at 2746 Grove Street. For further answer, respondent prays reference to the respective plats for each real property recorded with DeKalb County, which speak for themselves, and denies all allegations inconsistent therewith.

The allegations of paragraph 9 of the petition are denied.

The allegations of paragraph 11 of the petition are neither admitted nor denied for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations therein contained.

The allegations of paragraph 12 of the petition are admitted. For further answer, respondent prays reference to the boundary survey of 2740 Grove Street, which speaks for itself, and denies all allegations inconsistent therewith.

For answer to paragraph 13 of the petition, respondent prays reference to the boundary survey of 2740 Grove Street and the real property plat recorded with DeKalb County, which speak for themselves, and denies all allegations inconsistent therewith.

The allegations of paragraph 14 of the petition are denied.

The allegations of paragraph 15 of the petition are denied.

For answer to paragraph 16 of the petition, respondent admits that she received a purported notice from petitioner on October 26, 2021. For further answer, respondent prays reference to the October 26, 2021 notice, which speaks for itself, and denies any allegations inconsistent therewith.

The allegations of paragraph 17 of the petition are denied.

For answer to paragraph 18 of the petition, respondent admits that she has not made any modifications to her real property, located at 2740 Grove Street.

For answer to paragraph 19 of the petition, respondent admits that petitioner notified respondent of his allegations with respect to respondent’s structures and improvements.

Count I – Encroachment

The allegations of paragraph 20 of the petition are neither admitted nor denied for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations therein contained.

The allegations of paragraph 21 of the petition are denied.

The allegations of paragraph 22 of the petition are denied.

The allegations of paragraph 23 of the petition are denied. Count II – Negligence

For answer to Paragraph 24 of the petition, respondent realleges and reincorporates her responses to paragraphs 1 through 23 of the petition, the same as if restated herein verbatim.

The allegations of paragraph 25 of the petition are denied.

The allegations of paragraph 26 of the petition are denied. Count III – Temporary, Interlocutory and Permanent Injunctive Relief

For answer to Paragraph 27 of the petition, respondent realleges and reincorporates her responses to paragraphs 1 through 26 of the petition, the same as if restated herein verbatim.

The allegations of paragraph 28 of the petition are denied.

The allegations of paragraph 29 of the petition are denied.

The allegations of paragraph 30 of the petition are denied.

The allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the petition state legal conclusions to which no response is required of petitioner. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied to the extent they are inconsistent with Georgia’s statutory and common law.

For answer to paragraph 32 of the petition, respondent denies that petitioner is entitled to any of the relief requested in this paragraph.

Count IV – Permanent Injunction

For answer to paragraph 33 of the petition, respondent realleges and reincorporates her responses to paragraphs 1 through 32 of the petition, the same as if restated herein verbatim.

For answer to paragraph 34 of the petition, respondent denies that petitioner is entitled to any of the relief requested in this paragraph. Count V – Attorneys’ Fees

For answer to Paragraph 35 of the petition, respondent realleges and reincorporates her responses to paragraphs 1 through 34 of the petition, the same as if restated herein verbatim.

For answer to Paragraph 36 of the petition, respondent realleges and reincorporates her responses to paragraphs 1 through 35 of the petition, the same as if restated herein verbatim.

The allegations of paragraph 37 of the petition are denied.

The allegations of paragraph 38 of the petition are denied.

Respondent denies that petitioner is entitled to any of the relief requested in his prayer for relief.

All other allegations, contentions, claims and prayers for relief set forth in the petition not heretofore expressly admitted are specifically denied. SARAH ZEEMAN’S VERIFIED COUNTERCLAIM COMES NOW respondent Sarah Zeeman and files this Counterclaim against Jonathan Sweatman, showing the Court as follows: Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue 1. Sarah Zeeman is an individual and the owner of certain real property known as 2740 Grove Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia by virtue of a Warranty Deed dated May 30, 2006 recorded on June 5, 2006 in Deed Book 18783, Page 248, DeKalb County, Georgia records (hereinafter the “Zeeman Property”). 2. Jonathan Sweatman submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court and consented to venue herein by filing the above-styled action. 3. Sweatman is an individual and the owner of certain real property known as 2746 Grove Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia by virtue of a Warranty Deed dated March 31, 1994 recorded on April 4, 1994 in Deed Book 8128, Page 396, DeKalb County, Georgia records (hereinafter the “Sweatman Property”). Facts 4. The Zeeman Property and Sw