You are on page 1of 16
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA CHRISTOPHER MOSES 1 Plaintiff-Appellant, ] Case Number v ] AO7A1474 J J TRATON CORP., et al. Defendant s-Appellees. L2szied 61 WP LO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION COMES NOW Appellant, Christopher Moses, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court for reconsideration. The outcome of this case is of great concern, gravity, and importance to the public because the Court's Opinio (a) eviscerates a homeowner's ability to prevent others from damaging property that affects the value of the home; (b) requires the County to maintain property that has prior to this decision, always been understood by the general public as being the responsibility of the homeowner; (c) exposes the County to liabilities for hazardous conditions on property that has, prior to this decision, always been maintained by homeowners; and (a) prevents homeowners’ associations ("HOA") from requiring homeowners to properly maintain the right-of- way that adjoins the homeowners! lots, when maintenance of that right-of-way has always been the responsibility of the homeowner. Surely the Court cannot intend such far-reaching consequences from this particular decision Appellant moves under Rule 37(e), noting that this Honorable Court has overlooked a material fact in the record and a statute which is controlling as authority and which would require a different judgment from that rendered Appellant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court GRANT Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration. 19 duly 2007. Respectfully submitted, som She SAM HAN, P.C Sam S. Han Georgia Bar Number 322284 SAM HAN, P.C 330 Bloombridge Way Marietta, GA 30066 Phone: (404) 514-8237 email: sam.han.pc@gmail.com Page 2 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA CHRISTOPHER MOSES Plaintiff-Appellant, ] Case Number ve ] AO7A1474 TRATON CORP., et al. ] Defendants-appellees. ] BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION COMES NOW, Appellant, Christopher Moses, and files this Brief in Support of Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 37(e), noting that this Court has overlooked a material fact in the record, and a statute which is controlling as authority and which would require a different judgment from that rendered. I. INTRODUCTION The outcome of this case is of great concern, gravity, and importance to the public because this Court's Opinion: (a) obliterates a homeowner's ability to prevent others from damaging property which directly affects the value of the home; (b) requires the County to maintain property that has prior to this decision, always been understood by the general public as being the responsibility of the homeowner ; (c) shifts liability from a homeowner to the County for hazardous conditions in the right-of-way portion of the homeowner's yard; and