9766, LLC sought to protect an access route serving a medical practice on its property after Dwarf House expanded restaurant drive-through lanes and made the road one-way. 9766 filed an application for emergency injunctive relief, later amended its pleading to seek a declaration of easement rights, restoration of two-way traffic, damages, and attorney fees. The trial court sua sponte dismissed the action as improperly commenced and served and, alternatively, rejected 9766’s easement claim without expressly ruling on Dwarf House’s summary-judgment motion. The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed and remanded. A verified application containing the parties, facts, supporting agreement, and requested relief was not subject to dismissal merely because it was labeled an injunction application rather than a complaint. Service was also sufficient, and any defect was waived when Dwarf House omitted it from its answer. The trial court further erred in treating counsel’s statement that there was no express easement “per se” as a binding factual admission; the statement was a legal opinion concerning the access road, not an admission of fact. Because the trial court had not construed the easement agreement or fully considered the parties’ evidence, the appellate court remanded for a definitive ruling on whether an express easement existed.