Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 4, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Buford Dam Ventures, LLC v. Faith Businesses, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A25A1636

• Disposition: Vacated & Case Remanded

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (17.1K)

• PDF

Disposition

Vacated & Case Remanded

Combined Opinion

SECOND DIVISION
RICKMAN, P. J.,
GOBEIL and DAVIS, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

March 4, 2026

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A25A1636. BUFORD DAM VENTURES, LLC v. FAITH
BUSINESSES, INC.
A25A1682. BIG D FOODS, INC. et al. v. FAITH BUSINESSES,
INC.

DAVIS, Judge.

In these companion appeals stemming from a property dispute involving four

companies, Buford Dam Ventures, LLC (“Buford”), Big D Foods, Inc. (“BDF”) and

Meeny, LLC (“Meeny”) appeal from the trial court’s final order granting Faith

Businesses, Inc.’s (“Faith”) petition for declaratory judgment, specific performance,

and attorney fees. In Case No. A25A1636, Buford argues that the trial court erred by

(1) finding that the right of first refusal was assigned to Faith in a lease agreement; (2)

determining that Faith’s 2012 lease was a renewal lease; (3) determining that the

merger clause in Faith’s 2012 lease did not prohibit the subsequent modification of the
lease; (4) finding that the right of first refusal did not violate the rule against

perpetuities; (5) finding that the right of first refusal ran with the land; (6) denying its

request for a jury trial; and (7) ordering the release of funds from the court registry to

Faith. In Case No. A25A1682, BDF and Meeny argue that the trial court erred by (1)

denying their motion for involuntary dismissal; (2) granting Faith’s petition for

specific performance, declaratory judgment and attorneys fees; (3) granting Faith’s

motion for a bench trial; (4) prohibiting its expert witness from testifying at trial; and

(5) excluding an affidavit from evidence. Because we conclude that the trial court

erred by denying Buford’s, BDF’s, and Meeny’s request for a jury trial on Faith’s

claim for declaratory judgment, we vacate the trial court’s orders in both cases, and

we remand the cases to the trial court for a jury trial on Faith’s claim for declaratory

judgment.

The relevant factual background and procedural history of these appeals are as

follows. Lance Doyal1 owned Meeny and BDF, and BDF owned convenience stores

at three properties, one of which is located on Columbia Drive in Decatur, Georgia

(the “property”). In April 1995, BDF leased the property to U & Me Food and Gas,

1
Doyal passed away during the proceedings, so the transcript of his deposition
was read into evidence at trial.
2
Inc. (“U & Me”) The lease (“UMFG lease”) was to commence in April 1995 and

end in August 2013, and it included the following provisions:

1. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Tenant shall not assign this lease or allow any part to be assigned by operation of law or otherwise nor shall tenant sublet the premises or any part thereof nor shall [t]enant allow any use of the [p]remises without the [l]andlord’s express written consent. Any such assignment or sub-lease shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the [l]andlord may impose. Tenant may assign this lease to any corporation organized by [t]enant and whereby [t]enant is and remains the sole shareholder. Such assignment shall not relieve [t]enant of any responsibility hereunder.

...

1. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL. During this term of this [a]greement or any renewals hereof if [l]essee is not in default herein, the [l]essor does hereby grant to [l]essee a right of first refusal to purchase the premises. In the event [l]essor receives a bona fide written offer for purchase from any third party, said offer shall be communicated to [l]essee. Lessee shall have ten (10) days from the date [l]essee receives said offer to agree in writing to [l]essor to match the terms and conditions of said offer or [l]essee’s right of first refusal shall be void.

In 1996, Faith purchased U & Me’s leasehold interest in the property. According to

Raj Shah, Faith’s general manager, written documents were executed by Faith, BDF,

3
and U & Me to assign the UMFG lease and the right of first refusal to Faith, but Shah

was unable to produce the documents for trial.2 In June 2005, BDF conveyed the

property to Meeny for an unknown sum of money.3 Shah testified that he was unaware

of the transfer at the time of its execution and that he learned about the transfer in

2020.

In 2012, Doyal contacted Shah about negotiating another lease (“Faith lease”)

on the property.4 Shah testified that Doyal told him that, other than an increase in rent

and a change in the length of the lease, the terms of the Faith lease would remain the

same. The parties subsequently executed the Faith lease, but after signing the lease,

Shah noticed that the right of first refusal was not included in the lease. Shah

contacted Doyal, and according to Shah, Doyal told him to write on the lease, “ALL

2
One of the owners for U & Me also testified that Doyal was present at the
closing and executed documents to assign the UMFG lease to Faith.
3
The parties were in dispute as to the amount that Doyal paid for the transfer.
Doyal testified that he paid $750 for the transfer tax, but when asked whether he paid
$75,000 to comply with the lender’s regulations, he answered, “I don’t remember
doing that.”
4
According to Shah, Doyal asked him if he wanted to renew the lease on the
property, but Doyal testified that the lease was not a renewal “in the context of the
document being renewed” but merely a “renewal of [his] business” with the property.
4
TERMS STAYS SAME AS ORIGINAL FIRST LEASE.” Shah believed that since

the first lease expressly mentioned the right of first refusal, and the Faith lease was

merely a renewal of the UMFG lease, the additional language adequately included the

right of first refusal. Shah made the notations to the lease and, according to him, he

faxed a copy of the modified lease to Doyal.5 Doyal testified, however, that he did not

instruct Shah to make the change to the 2012 lease.

In 2020, Doyal contacted Shah and informed him that he was selling the

property. Shah confronted Doyal about the right of first refusal, and Doyal informed

him that he had already signed a contract with Buford and that Buford was purchasing

the property for $1.25 million. Buford’s owner subsequently contacted Shah, and

Shah told her about the right of first refusal, but she said that she “did not care.”

Buford purchased the property in December 2020, and in August 2023, Buford sent

Faith a letter demanding possession of the property.

Faith filed a complaint against Buford, BDF, and Meeny, seeking specific

performance to exercise its right of first refusal under both leases, a temporary

restraining order and injunction, declaratory judgment, and asserting claims for breach

5
Doyal testified that neither himself, BDF, or Meeny had fax machines, but he
was unsure whether his partner had a fax machine.
5
of contract and attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11.6 The defendants answered the

complaint,7 and BDF and Meeny filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial

court denied after a hearing. In denying summary judgment, the trial court found that

eight material issues of disputed fact remained on Faith’s claims:

(1) Whether [UMFG] executed an assignment of the lease in favor of
[Faith];

(2) Whether [BDF] agreed to the assignment of the lease from UMFG
and Faith;

(3) Whether or not the sale of the subject commercial property between
[BDF] and [Meeny] met the standard for invoking the [r]ight of [f]irst
[r]efusal as set forth in paragraph 26 of the initial lease agreement
between [BDF] and [UMFG];

(4) Whether BDF and Faith’s understanding of the right of first refusal
provision would encompass labeling Meeny a “third party”;

(5) Whether the parties intended a written offer to purchase the property
to be a condition precedent to the exercise of the right of first refusal;

6
Faith later withdrew its breach of contract claim.
7
BDF and Meeny asserted a counterclaim for fraud based on the alterations of
the 2012 lease, but they later withdrew the counterclaim.
6
(6) Whether [Doyal], acting on behalf of [Meeny] agreed to the
alterations made by [Faith] to paragraph 12:20 of the new 2012 lease
agreement[;]

(7) Whether Faith sent a fax to Meeny of the edited 2012 lease; and

(8) Whether Meeny and Faith reached an agreement to include the right
of first refusal in the 2012 lease.

Faith subsequently filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and

interlocutory injunction to allow it to remain on the property until the resolution of

the lawsuit. The trial court granted the motion and ordered Faith to pay $7,819.99 into

the court’s registry each month until further order from the court.8 The defendants

each subsequently filed a demand for jury trial, but Faith requested that the trial court

hold a bench trial. The trial court granted Faith’s request for a bench trial. The trial

court first found that the defendants were not entitled to a jury trial on Faith’s claim

for specific performance because there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in equity

cases, and an action for specific performance lies in equity. The trial court also found

that the defendants were not entitled to a jury trial on Faith’s claim for declaratory

8
The trial court also ordered Faith to pay an additional $7,819.99 per month in
rent to Buford until the case was resolved.
7
judgment because there were no factual disputes between the parties. Additionally,

the trial court determined that the defendants were not entitled to a jury trial on

Faith’s claim for attorney fees and expenses under OCGA § 13-6-11 because the trial

court is permitted to decide the issue when it sits as the finder of fact.

The case proceeded to a bench trial, and following the trial, the trial court

entered an order granting Faith’s petition for declaratory judgment, specific

performance, and its request for attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11. Pertinently, as

to the UMFG lease, the trial court determined that U & Me and Faith executed

written documents to assign the lease and the right of first refusal to Faith and that

BDF consented to the assignment. The trial court also found that Faith’s 2012 lease

was a renewal of the UMFG lease and that the parties intended for the right of first

refusal to continue into the 2012 lease. Specifically, the trial court relied on Shah’s

testimony that the parties intended to renew the lease and that there was a mutual

mistake in the lease agreement which caused the right of first refusal to not be

included in the 2012 lease. The trial court also credited Shah’s testimony that Doyal

instructed him to write “ALL TERMS STAYS SAME AS ORIGINAL FIRST

LEASE” on the Faith lease to reflect the parties’ intent for the right of first refusal to

8
be included in the lease. The trial court concluded that Faith was entitled to exercise

its right of first refusal based on the sale/transfer of the property from BDF to Meeny

and Buford’s offer to purchase the property, and it declared the sale of the property

to Buford void. The trial court also ordered that Faith be repaid $140,759.82 from the

court’s registry, which reflected the total amount that Faith paid into the court

registry pursuant to the temporary injunction. These appeals followed.

Case No. A25A1636

1. First, Buford Dam argues that the trial court erred by proceeding to a bench

trial on Faith’s claim for declaratory relief because factual disputes existed which

required the claim to be resolved by a jury.9 After a careful consideration of the record

and the relevant law, we are constrained to agree.

Jury trials in declaratory judgment actions are governed by OCGA § 9-4-6,

which provides in part:

When a declaration of right or the granting of further relief based thereon
involves the determination of issues of fact triable by a jury and jury trial
is not waived, the issues shall be submitted to a jury of 12 in the form of
interrogatories, with proper instructions by the court[.]

9
We address Buford’s claims of error in a different order than what it presented
in its appellate brief.
9
In construing this statute, we have been clear that “Georgia’s Declaratory Judgment

Act only requires a jury trial if there is an issue of fact that must be submitted to the

factfinder.” Ken’s Stereo Video Junction, Inc. v. Plotner, 253 Ga. App. 811, 813 (2) (560

SE2d 708) (2002); see also Torres v. Torres, 364 Ga. App. 695, 699(1) (875 SE2d 881)

(2022) (“[P]arties to a declaratory judgment action are entitled to a jury trial if the

petition raises an issue of disputed fact.”). It is true that issues concerning the

construction and interpretation of contracts are generally matters of law for a court to

resolve. Envision Printing, LLC v. Evans, 336 Ga. App. 635, 640 (3) (786 SE2d 250)

(2016). But where a trial court has to look to competing evidence of the parties’ intent

to construe an agreement in a declaratory judgment action, the parties are entitled to

a jury trial. Torres, 364 Ga. App. at 699(1).

Here, we conclude that there were disputed issues of fact regarding the parties’

intent, particularly regarding the right of first refusal, and thus Buford was entitled to

a jury trial on Faith’s declaratory judgment claim. We note at the outset that Faith’s

claim for declaratory relief was based in part on the sale of the property from Meeny

to Buford. As noted above, in denying BDF’s motion for summary judgment, the trial

court identified “material issues of disputed fact” that directly affected Buford’s claim

10
to the property, including whether Doyal agreed to the alterations in Faith’s 2012

lease and whether that lease included a right of first refusal.10 Moreover, in granting

declaratory relief based on the determination that the parties intended for the right of

first refusal to continue in the 2012 lease and that they agreed to the alterations in the

2012 lease, the trial court credited Shah’s testimony about a mutual mistake in the

right of first refusal being left out of the agreement and his testimony that Doyal

instructed him to write “ALL TERMS STAYS SAME AS ORIGINAL FIRST

LEASE” on the lease. Critically, the trial court determined that Doyal did not dispute

Shah’s testimony that he told Shah to write the additional language on the 2012 lease

to reflect their intent to include a right of first refusal. But we note that in Doyal’s

deposition testimony, he specifically denied Shah’s claim that he told Shah to write the

additional language on the lease, and BDF and Meeny’s counterclaim for fraud was

based on the alterations of the lease. Finally, the parties do not dispute that Buford did

10
Indeed, the trial court ultimately determined that because the parties intended
for Faith’s 2012 lease to contain a right of first refusal, Buford’s offer to purchase the
property triggered the right of first refusal and that Faith was therefore entitled to
purchase the property, and it declared the sale of the property from Meeny to Buford
invalid. Thus, we are unpersuaded by Faith’s claim that Buford is not entitled to a jury
trial on the basis that Buford is only “indirectly affected” by the resolution of the
claims.
11
not waive its right to a jury trial. Because disputed issues of fact existed regarding

Faith’s declaratory judgment claim, and Buford did not waive its right to a jury trial,

the trial court erred by denying Buford’s motion for a jury trial. See Torres, 364 Ga.

App. at 699(1). Cf. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Mabry, 274 Ga. 498, 501–02(3)

(556 SE2d 114) (2001) (trial court did not err by denying party’s demand for a jury

trial in a declaratory judgment proceeding where the appellant failed to identify any

findings of fact by the trial court to which there was a conflict in the evidence).11 We

therefore vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for a jury trial on

Faith’s declaratory judgment claim.12

1. Buford further argues that the trial court erred by ordering Faith to be repaid

$140,759.82 from the court registry. In light of our conclusion in Division 1, we agree.

11
Faith’s reliance on our prior decision in ALEA London Ltd. v. Woodcock, 286
Ga. App. 572, 574–78(2) (649 SE2d 740) (2007), is misplaced because that case only
involved the construction and interpretation of the terms in an insurance policy.
12
Although Buford argues that it was entitled to a jury trial on Faith’s request
for attorney fees and expenses under OCGA § 13-6-11, Buford ultimately
acknowledges that the trial court was not required to hold a jury trial on that claim
because the trial court sat as a finder of fact. See Covington Square Assoc., LLC v. Ingles
Markets, Inc., 287 Ga. 445, 448 (696 SE2d 649) (2010) (“[T]he trial court may grant
attorney fees or litigation expenses under OCGA § 13-6-11 where it sits as the trier of
fact[.]”) (quotation marks omitted).
12
The decision to order funds to be deposited in or disbursed from the court

registry falls under the broad powers conferred on trial courts under OCGA § 15-1-

3(4).13 OCGA § 44-7-54(a) generally requires a tenant to pay rent into the registry of

the trial court in cases where the right of possession is at issue. Pertinently, OCGA §

44-7-54(c) states in part that the portion “of the funds which is a matter of

controversy in the litigation shall remain in the registry of the court until a

determination of the issues by the trial court.” Here, as part of the trial court’s

determination that the transfer of the property from Meeny to Buford was invalid and

void, the court ordered that Faith be repaid $140,759.82 from the court’s registry,

which was the total amount that Faith paid into the court’s registry pursuant to the

temporary injunction. But because we have vacated the trial court’s judgment because

of its failure to hold a jury trial, the funds that Faith paid in rent into the court’s

registry remain in controversy and Faith is therefore not entitled to be reimbursed

from the registry at this time. Accord Dataforensics, LLC v. Boxer Prop. Mgmt., 361 Ga.

App. 311, 323(2) (864 SE2d 140) (2021) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse

13
OCGA § 15-1-3(4) provides that “[e]very court has the power ... [t]o control,
in the furtherance of justice, the conduct of its and all other persons connected with
a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter appertaining thereto[.]”
13
its discretion by ordering the landlord be paid funds from the registry because we

affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the landlord).14

Case No. A25A1682

1. In this appeal, BDF and Meeny argue, among other things, that the trial court

erred by denying their motion for a jury trial on Faith’s claim for declaratory

judgment.15 For the reasons stated above in Division 1, we conclude that the trial court

erred by denying their motion for a jury trial on Faith’s declaratory judgment claim.16

14
In light of our holdings in Divisions 1 and 2, it is unnecessary to address
Buford’s remaining claims of error, which pertain to the merits of the trial court’s
grant of specific performance and declaratory relief.
15
We also address BDF’s and Meeny’s claims of error in a different order than
what is presented in its appellate brief.
16
We reject BDF’s and Meeny’s claim that the trial court was required to hold
a jury trial on Faith’s request for attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11 simply because
it filed a demand for a jury trial. There is nothing in the language of OCGA § 13-6-11
that requires a trial court to hold a jury trial on the issue of attorney fees under OCGA
§ 13-6-11 simply because a party has filed a demand for a jury trial, and we cannot add
requirements to statutes. See City of Atlanta v. Block, Inc. of Delaware, 375 Ga. App.
717, 726(2) (917 SE2d 403) (2025) (“[U]nder our system of separation of powers,
courts do not have the authority to rewrite statutes. The doctrine of separation of
powers is an immutable constitutional principle which must be strictly enforced.
Under that doctrine, statutory construction belongs to the courts, legislation to the
legislature. We can not add a line to the law.”)(citation modified).
14
In light of this resolution, it is unnecessary to address BDF’s and Meeny’s remaining

claims of error.

In sum, in both cases A25A1636 and A25A1682, we vacate the trial court’s

orders granting Faith’s petition, and we remand the cases to the trial court for a jury

trial on Faith’s declaratory judgment claim.

Judgments vacated and cases remanded. Rickman, P. J., concurs. Gobeil, J., concurs

specially.

1
A25A1636. BUFORD DAM VENTURES, LLC v. FAITH

BUSINESSES INC.

A25A1682. BIG D FOODS, INC. et al. v. FAITH BUSINESSES,

INC.

GOBEIL, Judge, concurring specially.

I agree with the Majority’s decision to vacate the trial court’s judgment in these

cases because there was at least one disputed issue of fact for which the defendants

were entitled to a jury trial under OCGA § 9-4-6. I write separately to highlight what

I believe are the key pieces of information that lead to this conclusion.

As explained by the Majority’s opinion, issues concerning the interpretation

and construction of contracts are generally matters of law that do not require jury
determination. Indeed, “the issue of interpretation becomes a jury question only when

there appears to be an ambiguity in the contract which cannot be negated by the

court’s application of the statutory rules of construction.” Goody Products, Inc. v. Dev.

Auth. of City of Manchester, 320 Ga. App. 530, 535 (2) (740 SE2d 261) (2013). Here, the

trial court went beyond merely interpreting any ambiguity in the disputed lease.

Rather, in concluding that the right of first refusal was intended to be included in the

faith lease despite not appearing in the document signed by the parties, the court

repeatedly refers to the “intent” or “understanding” of the parties at the time they

executed the faith lease.

The trial court specifically lays out that it “must determine whether the parties

intended for the Right of First Refusal to survive the execution of the Renewed

Lease.” It goes on to answer that question in the affirmative and find that its absence

in the faith lease “was the result of mutual mistake.” The court then referenced parol

evidence, including testimony from Shah about a phone conversation between him

and Doyal after the faith lease was executed, during which they agreed that a mistake

had occurred and Shah should edit the lease to reflect that all terms stay the same as

the original lease. Typically, once parol evidence is introduced to determine intent in

the execution of a contract, “the question of what was intended becomes an issue of
3
fact for the jury.” JBM Investments, LLC v. Callahan Indus., 293 Ga. App. 580, 582 (1)

(667 SE2d 429) (2008). Additionally, looking to circumstances surrounding the

execution of a contract to explain whether the parties were operating under a mutual

mistake, or deciding whether the parties agreed to modify a contract, involve fact

questions that generally “require[ ] jury resolution.” Lynx Real Estate v. F.A.L Invs.,

312 Ga. App. 324, 326–27(1) (718 SE2d 552) (2011).

Although the trial court considers the evidence on these issues undisputed

(finding that Doyal “testified only that he could not recall what they discussed at or

around the time of the execution of the Renewed Lease”), I agree with the Majority

that the record reflects that Doyal did contest the idea that he agreed with this

alteration to the written document. In addition to denying the allegations in his answer

and filing his counterclaim in which he asserted that neither he nor anyone on behalf

of either defendant agreed to the alteration, he affirmatively testified in his deposition

that “he knew nothing about this amendment,” and he had never seen the notation

before Faith filed the lawsuit. Thus, I agree that this judgment should be vacated, and

the case remanded for a jury trial.

4