348 Ga. App. 309
Ga. Ct. App.2018Background
- World Congress Center (a state instrumentality) previously owned the Georgia Dome and then granted the Stadium Company an exclusive license (SLM Agreement) to use and occupy the Mercedes‑Benz Stadium; the parties characterized the interest as a usufruct (non‑taxable) in earlier MOUs.
- Fulton County Board of Tax Assessors issued a 2013 Statement of Intent recognizing an exemption for the stadium property on the basis of the MOUs and indicating the exemption would apply upon construction and remain unless agreements changed.
- Plaintiffs (Fulton County taxpayers) sued the Tax Board and individual members/Chief Appraiser (official and individual capacities) seeking mandamus, declaratory judgment (that the SLM created a taxable leasehold, not a usufruct), injunctive relief, and a declaration that OCGA § 10‑9‑10 is unconstitutional.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under OCGA § 9‑11‑12(b)(6). The trial court granted dismissal, holding mandamus was inappropriate and individual‑capacity injunctive/declaratory claims were barred by official immunity; it dismissed the statutory challenge as moot.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed dismissal of mandamus claims and official‑capacity equitable claims, reversed dismissal of individual‑capacity declaratory/injunctive claims, and reinstated the plaintiffs’ statutory‑challenge motion (not moot).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court impermissibly considered matters outside the complaint (conversion to summary judgment) | Trial court referenced considering the whole record and thus converted the motion to summary judgment without notice | Court limited its ruling to the amended petitions and attached exhibits; no conversion occurred | No error; presumption court followed law not rebutted |
| Mandamus against Tax Board (OCGA § 48‑5‑299(a)) — whether plaintiffs have clear legal right to compel investigation | Tax Board had a non‑discretionary duty to investigate; Board failed to review SLM Agreement, so mandamus is proper | Statute allows discretion in how to investigate; Board already investigated (Statement of Intent) and mandamus cannot dictate manner of discretion | Dismissed: mandamus inappropriate because Board investigated and discretion cannot be controlled by mandamus |
| Mandamus against individual Board members/Chief Appraiser (individual capacity) | Same as above; seek mandamus against individuals | Official immunity and failure of mandamus claim | Dismissed: affirmed because mandamus fails on merits regardless of immunity |
| Declaratory/injunctive relief against individuals and statutory challenge | Plaintiffs seek prospective relief and a ruling on §10‑9‑10’s constitutionality; individual suits possible for prospective relief | Defendants argued official immunity bars individual‑capacity suits; trial court dismissed statutory challenge as moot | Reversed as to individual‑capacity declaratory/injunctive claims (official immunity does not bar prospective relief); statutory‑challenge motion not moot and revived |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker County v. Tri‑State Crematory, 292 Ga. App. 411 (standards for reviewing dismissal motions)
- Lord v. Lowe, 318 Ga. App. 222 (motion to dismiss standard and construing pleadings)
- Racette v. Bank of America, N. A., 318 Ga. App. 171 (exhibits attached to pleadings control discrepancies)
- Bibb County v. Monroe County, 294 Ga. 730 (mandamus can compel officials to act but not control how discretion is exercised)
- R.A.F. v. Robinson, 286 Ga. 644 (mandamus cannot direct manner of discretionary investigations)
- Lathrop v. Deal, 301 Ga. 408 (official immunity applies to retrospective damages but does not bar prospective declaratory/injunctive relief)
- Campbell v. Ailion, 338 Ga. App. 382 (procedures when converting motion to dismiss into summary judgment)
- Bland Farms, LLC v. Ga. Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Ga. 192 (mandamus may set an officer in motion but cannot dictate the content of discretionary decisions)