Georgia Transmission Corp. v. Worley
312 Ga. App. 855
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- GTC filed three separate in rem condemnation petitions to obtain easements across three adjacent parcels in Barrow County for transmission lines.
- Parcels are owned by members of the Worley, Puckett, Craigs families; each parcel is separately owned and used agriculturally.
- Special master heard evidence on all three petitions over two days and issued separate findings and awards for each parcel.
- Condemnees appealed the awards and sought jury trials; they moved to consolidate the three cases for one jury trial, which GTC opposed.
- Superior Court granted consolidation citing equitable powers and fiscal considerations, and denied consent from GTC.
- GTC petitioned for immediate review; the court reversed, holding consolidation without consent violated OCGA § 9-11-42(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May cases be consolidated without consent? | GTC argues § 9-11-42(a) requires consent for consolidation. | Condemnees maintain equity powers justify consolidation under Title 23. | Consolidation without consent is improper; reversal. |
| Does Title 22 conflict with the CPA when consolidating condemnations? | GTC argues no conflict; CPA applies, requiring consent. | Condemnees rely on Defoor to suggest broader consolidation authority under other titles. | No conflict; CPA governs; consolidation without consent not allowed. |
| Can equitable powers authorize consolidation in this in rem condemnation context? | Superior Court relied on OCGA § 23-4-116 to consolidate for efficiency. | Equitable powers should not override statutory consent requirements in Title 22 actions. | Equitable powers do not authorize consolidation here; consent required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Defoor, 173 Ga. App. 218 (1984) (condemnation procedure under Title 32 distinguished; consolidation authority not broad)
- Phagan v. State, 287 Ga. 856 (2010) (CPA applies to special statutory proceedings unless conflict specified)
- Walker Elec. Co. v. Walton, 201 Ga. 591 (1946) (equitable considerations and consolidation principles noted)
- Brunswick Landing, LLC v. Glynn County, 301 Ga. App. 288 (2009) (equity-based consolidation considerations in Georgia appellate practice)
- Central of Ga. Elec. Membership Corp. v. Mills, 196 Ga. App. 882 (1990) (in rem/easement context; statutory framework considerations)
- Ga. Power Co. v. Stowers, 282 Ga. App. 695 (2006) (special master proceedings and statutory framework relevant to timing of issues)
- Nodvin v. Ga. Power Co., 125 Ga. App. 821 (1972) (reiterates special statutory proceeding status)
- Fort v. Rucker-Fort, 297 Ga. App. 3 (2009) (illustrates statutory construction considerations)
- Currid v. DeKalb State Court Prob. Dep’t., 285 Ga. 184 (2009) (statutory construction guiding interpretation of CPA applicability)