Croy v. Whitfield County
301 Ga. 380
Ga.2017Background
- In Jan 2012 Joe Leonard allegedly was injured on a Whitfield County transit bus; his counsel sent a written presentment in June 2012 to Robert Smalley, an attorney in private practice who also served as Whitfield County Attorney by appointment.
- Leonard sued Whitfield County in Jan 2014; Leonard died and his daughter/executrix Janice Croy was substituted. County moved for summary judgment under OCGA § 36-11-1, arguing the claim was not timely presented.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the County; the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on its precedent (Coweta County v. Cooper) that presentment to a county attorney counts only if the attorney is employed in-house.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals decision in In re Estate of Leonard and considered whether presentment to a county attorney (inside or outside) satisfies OCGA § 36-11-1.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that presentment to the county attorney — whether in-house or outside counsel — satisfies the statutory presentment requirement, provided the attorney is the duly appointed county attorney. The Court did not decide whether the letter’s content was sufficient; that remains for the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether presentment under OCGA § 36-11-1 may be made to the county attorney | Presentment to Smalley, as Whitfield County Attorney, satisfied the statute | Presentment must be to the governing authority or proper county official; letter to Smalley insufficient | Yes—presentment to the duly appointed county attorney satisfies OCGA § 36-11-1 |
| Whether presentment is valid only to an in-house county attorney (inside vs outside) | Outside (private-practice) county attorney is still the county’s legal officer; presentment to him is valid | Presentment is invalid if county attorney is not employed in-house; Coweta County precedent | No—the Court rejects the inside/outside distinction and disapproves Coweta County to the extent it holds otherwise |
| Whether the sufficiency of the letter’s content was decided | (alternative) The letter provided adequate presentment | County argued letter lacked required detail | Not decided—trial court must address content in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Coweta County v. Cooper, 318 Ga. App. 41 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (Court of Appeals decision that treated presentment to county attorney as valid only if attorney is in-house)
- In re Estate of Leonard, 336 Ga. App. 768 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016) (Court of Appeals decision on review holding presentment to outside county attorney was insufficient)
- Powell v. Muscogee County, 71 Ga. 587 (Ga. 1883) (early holding that presentment to county must be in writing)
- Maddox v. Randolph County, 65 Ga. 216 (Ga. 1880) (presentment must be directed to the governing authority)
- Burton v. DeKalb County, 202 Ga. App. 676 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992) (holding presentment to county subordinate officer can satisfy OCGA § 36-11-1 and relying on municipal ante litem notice cases)
- Davis v. Cobb County, 65 Ga. App. 533 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941) (delivery to a single member of governing authority sufficient)
- Vollrath v. Collins, 272 Ga. 601 (Ga. 2000) (describing the county attorney as legal representative and agent of the county)