Property owners who deal with repeated, willful trespass often ask: Can we recover punitive damages, even if the out-of-pocket damage is modest? A new Georgia Court of Appeals decision provides a helpful and practical answer. In Ramey v. Kimsey, the Court affirmed a punitive damages award, reduced to $250,000 based on a statutory cap, in a dispute involving repeated intrusions and profit-driven conduct tied to short-term rentals.
The parties owned neighboring properties in Rabun County, separated by a creek. The plaintiffs (the Kimseys) owned property extending to the creek’s centerline and encompassing half of a waterfall. The defendant (Ramey) operated multiple buildings as short-term rentals. Ramey’s property did not embrace any portion of the waterfall. The Kimseys installed “no trespassing” signs to their side of the creek.
A footbridge near one rental crossed the creek to a clearing on the Kimseys’ side. Ramey admitted that he used the bridge and clearing and that he placed chairs and a firepit there.
The dispute escalated after the Kimseys saw a short-term rental listing for Ramey’s property that included photos of the waterfall, even though no portion of the waterfall was on his property. The Kimseys contended that visitors increased, and that some visitors became more persistent and confrontational when asked to leave.
The Kimseys sued for trespass and ejectment, and sought injunctive relief, general damages, and punitive damages.
After a bifurcated trial, the jury awarded $27,000 in general damages and $450,000 in punitive damages. The jury also found that Ramey did not act with specific intent to harm. Because Georgia law generally caps punitive damages at $250,000 absent a specific-intent finding, the trial court reduced the punitive award to $250,000 under OCGA § 51-12-5.1(g).
Ramey appealed and argued that the reduced punitive damages award was still “grossly excessive” when compared to the general damages award.
The Court began with the statutory standard: punitive damages are available when there is “clear and convincing evidence [of] willful misconduct, malice, wantonness, oppression, or an entire want of care that raises the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.” OCGA § 51-12-5.1(b). The Court emphasized a key principle that often arises in boundary and access disputes: a willful repetition of a trespass can authorize punitive damages.
The Court also reiterated that punitive damages may be awarded even when actual damages are small, because the purpose of punitive damages is to punish and deter.
Applying those rules to the evidence, the Court pointed to Ramey’s admission that he placed the chairs and firepit on the Kimseys’ property, along with evidence that he advertised access to the waterfall to guests despite knowing that his property did not include the waterfall. The Court treated the profit-driven aspect of the conduct as meaningful, noting that the trespasses were connected to encouraging rental guests to use a feature that was not his to offer.
The Court also rejected the argument that injunctive relief should substitute for punitive damages. Deterrence is one purpose of punitive damages, but the Court explained that punishment for past conduct can still justify an award even when a permanent injunction is in place.
Finally, the Court observed that the reduced punitive award was about 9.25 times the general damages award and concluded the amount was rationally related to the conduct and did not “shock the judicial conscience.” The Court therefore affirmed the trial court’s judgment. (The Westlaw citation as of the date of this article is: 2025 WL 3675577 (Ga. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2025).)
Repeated trespass after notice is a fact pattern courts take seriously. If a defendant continues to cross a boundary or use land after objections, that “repetition” can support punitive damages.
Profit-driven trespass can increase exposure. In Ramey, evidence that the defendant’s short-term rental marketing encouraged guests to access the plaintiffs’ waterfall helped support the punitive damages award.
Punitive damages caps still matter. Even when a jury awards punitive damages, Georgia’s statutory cap can apply unless the jury finds specific intent to harm. This is an issue to evaluate early, both for case value and for settlement strategy.
Injunctions and punitive damages can coexist. If your goal is to stop the conduct quickly, injunctive relief may be essential. But the Court’s decision is a reminder that an injunction does not automatically eliminate the possibility of punitive damages based on past willful conduct.
If you are dealing with repeated trespass—especially where the trespasser is using your property to enhance a business, rental, or other profit-driven activity—an attorney can help you evaluate your options for injunctive relief, damages, and (when supported by the evidence) punitive damages.
LIBERMAN LAW works with trial counsel as embedded appellate counsel to strengthen issues for appeal. We collaborate on key motions, jury charges, post-trial motions and handle direct appellate representation. If you have questions about a willful or repeated trespass or another real property dispute, or you are a trial attorney interested in our embedded appellate services, we invite you to contact our law office to schedule a consultation.
Published Dec. 18, 2025
© 2026 Julie A. Liberman, LLC
View Our Disclaimer | Privacy Policy