Bibb County v. Monroe County
294 Ga. 730
Ga.2014Background
- boundary line dispute between Monroe County and Bibb County over true dividing line identified by state surveyor Scarborough
- Scarborough submitted final survey and plat in 2009; Bibb County filed exceptions challenging northern terminating point
- Secretary of State denied Scarborough survey in 2011 after SAALJ hearing; boundary remained undetermined
- Monroe County sought judicial review; trial court dismissed as Secretary’s action non-judicial; mandamus petition followed
- Trial court granted mandamus directing recording of Scarborough survey; Bibb County moved to intervene and was denied
- This Court granted discretionary appeals to address mandamus viability, scope of Secretary’s duties, appealability, and intervention issue
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can mandamus lie to compel action under OCGA 36-3-20 et seq. when boundary disputes are involved? | Monroe County | Bibb County and Kemp | Yes, mandamus may lie for official action under statute |
| May mandamus compel recording of the Scarborough survey or instead require a different boundary determination? | Monroe County | Kemp (and Bibb) | Mandamus may compel boundary determination and recording, but cannot dictate the exact result by recording Scarborough's survey |
| Is the trial court’s mandamus order directly appealable or proper under appellate review rules? | Monroe County | Bibb County and Kemp | Direct appealability not dispositive; court maintains discretion and resolves on merits |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying Bibb County’s intervention? | Bibb County | Monroe County / Kemp | Yes, intervention should have been granted due to Bibb's substantial interests and notice deficiencies |
Key Cases Cited
- Early County v. Baker County, 137 Ga. 126 ((1911)) (statutory boundary process not judicial; political function, review possible)
- Fine v. Dade County, 198 Ga. 655 ((1944)) (Secretary acts politically in boundary disputes)
- Thompson v. Talmadge, 201 Ga. 867 ((1947)) (jurisdiction over political questions not absolute; review of procedure permissible)
- Ga. Dept. of Transp. v. Peach Hill Properties, Inc., 278 Ga. 198 ((2004)) (mandamus may compel action but not dictate outcome; discretion involved)
- Dougherty County v. Webb, 256 Ga. 474 ((1986)) (mandamus proper to compel consideration of evidence but not to fix decision)