obtain a number of the relevant documents from Farnbacher. Accordingly, there is evidence that Farnbacher could have been persuaded to produce the documents earlier and, thus, the trial court did not err in concluding that Lion had the ability to comply with the trial court’s orders. Moreover, Lion lent the race car to Farnbacher in violation of the trial court’s turnover order. Therefore, Lion cannot now claim that it is unable to comply with the trial court’s discovery order as a result of Farnbacher’s unwillingness to assist. In a contempt proceeding, “the defendant’s own acts cannot be responsible for his inability to comply.” (Citation omitted.) Turner Advertising, supra, 252 Ga. at 103 (2); see also Kace Investments, LP v. Hull, 278 Ga. App. 477, 484-485 (2) (629 SE2d 26) (2006) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the trial court did not grossly
holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement holding that when notice to vacate was insufficient to comply with the terms of the lease lease was not properly terminated before commencement of summary ejectment action recognizing that where a grantee has an easement which he shares with others his duty to repair and maintain it must be apportioned with all other easement holders based upon the extent of the individuals use of the easement recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance holding that the plaintiff could not complain that it was unable to comply with the trial courts order to respect the defendants easement because of its lease with a third party where plaintiff had entered into lease knowing that property was subject to an easement