HEISKELL Et Al. v. ROBERTS
342 Ga. App. 109
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Bruce Roberts was appointed State Court Judge of Walker County in Sept. 2011 and paid an annualized salary of $100,000 (a $40,000 supplement above the $60,000 local base) for a 15‑month term ending 2012.
- Roberts sued Walker County and Commissioner Bebe Heiskell seeking mandamus to recover the difference between his pay and his predecessor’s higher compensation and sought county-funded counsel; the county filed counterclaims including reimbursement of alleged overpayments.
- The trial court initially granted Roberts mandamus relief, ordered payment of $78,878.55, dismissed counterclaims as barred by judicial immunity, and awarded fees to Roberts.
- The Georgia Supreme Court (Heiskell I) reversed parts of that ruling, held some county counterclaims were frivolous, and remanded to allow the county to pursue reimbursement and to limit the fees award.
- On remand the trial court granted Roberts summary judgment defeating the reimbursement counterclaim, awarded him attorney fees for defending that claim under Gwinnett County v. Yates principles, and awarded OCGA § 9‑15‑14(a) fees for defending the frivolous counterclaims.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: the county failed to show payments were made with a total absence of power or otherwise recoverable, Roberts was entitled to fees for defending the reimbursement claim, and the § 9‑15‑14(a) fee award was supported by evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roberts) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether county may recover the supplement paid to Roberts (reimbursement counterclaim) | The supplement was validly paid; budget/minutes and county practice suffice to show authority | The supplement lacked proper approval/documentation and thus was unauthorized and must be repaid | Court: County failed to show payment was made with total absence of power; summary judgment for Roberts affirmed |
| Whether Open Meetings Act (OMA) invalidates supplement and allows recovery | OMA defense is untimely and does not bar the supplement here | OMA violation (decision occurred in violation) makes action void and supports recovery | Court: Even if OMA was violated, OMA’s 90‑day limitation bars contest; OMA does not permit recovery now |
| Standard for voidness — total absence of power vs. procedural irregularity | The supplement was at most procedurally irregular, not ultra vires | Payment was unauthorized (no ordinance/minute detail) — constitutes invalid act | Court: Must show total absence of power to void; county produced no local law showing total lack of authority; procedural irregularity insufficient to recover |
| Entitlement and amount of attorney fees (Gwinnett rule and OCGA §9‑15‑14) | Roberts sought fees: (1) under Gwinnett/Yates because he, as official, had to hire counsel and prevailed on defense; (2) under §9‑15‑14 for frivolous counterclaims; amounts are reasonable | County argued Roberts wasn’t successful on principal claim (mandamus), and §9‑15‑14 award included work unrelated to frivolous claims | Court: Fees under Gwinnett recoverable because Roberts prevailed on the reimbursement defense; §9‑15‑14 award sustained because evidence supports reasonableness and allocation to frivolous claims (rough justice standard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gwinnett County v. Yates, 265 Ga. 504 (local government must pay an official’s outside counsel when official succeeds asserting a legal position the local government attorney will not or cannot assert)
- City of Baldwin v. Woodard & Curran, 293 Ga. 19 (distinguishes total absence of power from procedural irregularity; strict nullity applies only to ultra vires acts)
- H.G. Brown Family, L.P. v. City of Villa Rica, 278 Ga. 819 (city charter/statute governs whether action is beyond authority)
- First Natl. Bank v. Mann, 211 Ga. 706 (salary payments are not contractual under statutes requiring written contracts on minutes)
- Guthrie v. Dalton City School Dist., 213 Ga. App. 849 (Open Meetings Act remedy limited by its statutory 90‑day contest period)
- Montgomery County v. Sharpe, 261 Ga. App. 389 (party seeking recovery must show voluntary payment doctrine does not bar recoupment)
- Jennings v. McIntosh County Bd. of Commrs., 276 Ga. 842 (official’s entitlement to fees depends on success asserting position and may be partial)
- Haggard v. Bd. of Regents, 257 Ga. 524 (appellate standard: fee award under §9‑15‑14 will be affirmed if any evidence supports it)