Georgia court fines a homeowner $2,500 for a frivolous appeal against her HOA
Georgia court fines a homeowner $2,500 for a frivolous appeal against her HOA
2026-09-10 · Georgia · Courts
What happened. The Georgia Court of Appeals has imposed a $2,500 frivolous-appeal penalty on a homeowner, on its own motion, at the end of a decade-long dispute with her association — and let the association unwind her transfer of the property as fraudulent.
Rampersad v. The Plantation at Bay Creek Homeowners Association, Inc., No. A25A0660, decided 17 June 2025. Hodges, J., with McFadden, P.J., and Pipkin, J., concurring. Published; affirmed.1
The dispute
The case arises, in the court's own words, from “Rampersad's ten-year failure to pay her community's required annual assessments” on a Loganville property in Gwinnett County. It was the second time the case reached the Court of Appeals.
The association sued for unpaid assessments, then amended to add Rampersad personally and three corporate entities that had appeared in the property's recent chain of title.
The procedural history is where it went wrong for her. She counterclaimed for attorney's fees and wrongful foreclosure, then voluntarily withdrew those counterclaims in July 2024. She withdrew her notice of appeal from a May 2023 summary-judgment order. Then she appealed the October 2024 order that dismissed the already-withdrawn counterclaims and set aside her transfer of the property as fraudulent.
The jurisdictional problem
The court found it had jurisdiction over only two of her ten enumerations of error: “Rampersad cannot appeal from an order dismissing counterclaims that she herself had already voluntarily withdrawn.”
It also noted, citing Stovall Nissan, that “an OCGA § 13-6-11 claim cannot be sustained on claims which are no longer pending” — bad-faith attorney's fees under that section are derivative of a live substantive claim.
The penalty
Then, on its own motion, under Court of Appeals Rule 7(e)(2):
“An appeal is frivolous if it is filed only to delay the enforcement of the trial court's judgment. Delay can be assumed where an appeal lacks merit.”
Finding her arguments “not merely meritless but frivolous,” the court “exercise[d] our inherent power to impose a frivolous appeal penalty against Rampersad in the amount of $2,500,” to be entered as a money judgment for the association on return of the remittitur.
The pattern behind the single case
Rampersad is not an outlier. It is the published tip of something visible across the Georgia Court of Appeals docket in this period: a steady stream of appeals by unrepresented homeowners against their associations, disposed of by short order without a published opinion.
Cases in that category from the 2026 term include Padilla v. Whispering Creeks HOA (A26A2127), Stuart v. The Park at Poplar Creek HOA (A26A2328), Vo v. Bellmoore Park HOA (A26A1614), Jones v. Oakley Township HOA (A26A1135), Wicker v. Mainstreet Community Services Ass'n (A27A0146) and Dutchak v. The Reserve at Old Lost Mountain (A26A2336), among others.
None is precedential and none establishes anything about the merits of those particular disputes. The pattern is still worth naming, because it describes the real shape of Georgia HOA litigation: an association with counsel on a fee-shifting covenant, against an owner without.
Why homeowners lose on procedure rather than merits
Reading the published Georgia decisions of 2025-2026 together, the homeowner losses cluster around a small number of procedural failures, and almost none turn on whether the association was right.
- Appealing the wrong order — Rampersad: counterclaims she had already withdrawn.
- Asking for a remedy the statute does not provide — Boaz v. Thirteen Hundred on Lake Nottely: dissolution, where O.C.G.A. § 44-5-60(d)(5) authorises only an order transferring control.
- Suing directly where the claim is derivative — St. Michael's Bay v. Hadden-Kaser.
- Failing to preserve an evidentiary point — Cotton v. Vinings Estates: the selective-enforcement evidence was excluded and the appellate claim deemed abandoned.
- Not tendering before attacking a foreclosure — Hale v. ASBM Investments, where the owner proved the sale was conducted by a private individual rather than a sheriff, contrary to O.C.G.A. § 9-13-161(a), and still lost.
Georgia courts are not hostile to homeowners. The published record includes real homeowner wins in the same period: Kinnaird v. Morningview reversed summary judgment for an association on a solar denial; Anderson v. Tolomato Island reversed a judgment that a house could not cross a lot line; Tuscany v. C.P. held a declaration's exculpatory clause unenforceable against a tenant. Each of those was argued on a specific legal point, properly preserved.
What it costs to get this wrong
The asymmetry is the reason to be careful. A Georgia association pursuing assessments under a POA Act declaration recovers its reasonable attorney's fees actually incurred under § 44-3-232(b)(3). A homeowner who loses pays those fees on top of the assessments — and, in Rampersad, a $2,500 penalty on top of that.
Cotton v. Vinings Estates is the scale marker: $6,475 in fines produced $73,000 in fees and costs.
What changed on 1 July 2026, and what changes in January
Two developments give a Georgia homeowner cheaper options than an appeal.
Fees now have a gate. Since 1 July 2026, before an association may collect or be awarded attorney's fees it must send certified-mail notice identifying the outstanding fines or delinquent fees, allow 30 days from receipt to pay, and supply an itemised list — and in a bench trial a judge must enter an order finding the fees reasonable before any award.2 The Court of Appeals had already shown in Ellington v. Ibrahim that it would enforce reasonableness to the point of awarding an association nothing.
There will be a forum that is not a court. From 1 January 2027, § 43-17A-5 lets any person residing in the development complain to the Secretary of State within 180 days, and the filing itself stays collection of the disputed fines and fees. It has no filing fee in the statute, no derivative-standing threshold, and no requirement of counsel. The downside for a losing complainant is a $100 administrative fee — against a $2,500 frivolous-appeal penalty and the association's fees.
For the Georgia homeowner who would otherwise be filing a pro se appeal, that is the single most useful thing in the new statute.
What to watch next
Whether the volume of unrepresented Georgia HOA appeals falls after January. If the complaint process absorbs these disputes, it will show up first as a thinner Court of Appeals docket — and that would be the clearest early evidence that Act 715 is doing what it was passed to do.
Related Georgia HOA Topics
- Rampersad v. The Plantation at Bay Creek Homeowners Association, Inc., No. A25A0660 (Ga. Ct. App. 17 June 2025) — slip opinion ↩
- Senate Bill 406, as passed (26 LC 49 2879S) — signed copy, Office of the Governor ↩
- Ellington Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Ibrahim, No. A25A0707 (Ga. Ct. App. 19 May 2025) — slip opinion ↩
Stay on top of Georgia HOA law
Every week: new Georgia legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.