Dillard Land Investments, LLC v. Fulton County
295 Ga. 515
| Ga. | 2014Background
- Fulton County filed a special-master condemnation petition in Feb 2012 to acquire ~12+ acres from Dillard Land Investments after negotiations failed; a special master was appointed and held a hearing.
- The special master issued an award valuing the property at $5,187,500; the trial court then entered a judgment condemning the property contingent on payment of that award.
- Fulton County did not pay the award; two days after the trial court’s judgment it filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under OCGA § 9-11-41(a).
- Dillard moved to vacate the dismissal; the trial court granted Dillard, holding the condemnor cannot unilaterally dismiss after the special master’s award.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, relying on OCGA § 22-1-12 and distinguishing assessor-method precedents; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding a condemnor may not unilaterally dismiss a special-master condemnation after the special master has rendered the value award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dillard/condemnee unless otherwise noted) | Defendant's Argument (Fulton County/condemnor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a condemnor may unilaterally dismiss a special-master condemnation after the special master issues a value award | Dillard: Once the special master, as the factfinder, has announced value, the condemnor cannot unilaterally dismiss because that announcement is a dispositive ruling cutting off § 9-11-41(a) dismissal rights | Fulton: The special-master award is not a final enforceable judgment until payment and court entry; § 9-11-41(a) permits dismissal before payment and title vesting | Held: A condemnor cannot unilaterally dismiss after the special master’s value award; the plaintiff’s knowledge of the dispositive result ends the unilateral dismissal right. |
| Whether OCGA § 22-1-12 (landowner cost-shifting) allows or alters the condemnor’s ability to abandon/dismiss after a special master award | Dillard: § 22-1-12 reallocates costs when a condemnor abandons but does not authorize unilateral dismissal after a dispositive value finding | Fulton: § 22-1-12 (and Gramm) supports the right to abandon/dismiss before payment/title vesting; special-master process differs from assessors method | Held: § 22-1-12 does not change the timing rule for unilateral voluntary dismissals; it only alters cost allocation when condemnors abandon. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Cent. of Ga. R. Co., 169 Ga. 269 (Ga. 1929) (assessors’ value award precludes unilateral dismissal)
- Housing Auth. of Atlanta v. Mercer, 123 Ga. App. 38 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970) (condemnor cannot abandon after assessors’ award)
- Gramm v. City of Stockbridge, 297 Ga. App. 165 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (condemnor attempted post-payment dismissal; not controlling here)
- Cooper v. Rosser, 233 Ga. 388 (Ga. 1974) (a party’s knowledge of the tribunal’s dispositive result cuts off unilateral voluntary dismissal)
- Orr v. Ga. Transmission Corp., 281 Ga. 754 (Ga. 2007) (discusses timing of title vesting/enforceability in condemnation)
- Wall v. Thurman, 283 Ga. 533 (Ga. 2008) (announced rulings preclude unilateral dismissal)
- Lakes v. Marriott Corp., 264 Ga. 475 (Ga. 1994) (limits on unilateral dismissal even where dismissal alleged in bad faith)