McMeans v. Department of Transportation
319 Ga. App. 230
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- DOT filed a petition for condemnation of McMeans's property and named McMeans, MLI, and others as defendants.
- McMeans answered, admitting ownership of the described property and alleging damages of at least $1.3 million.
- MLI moved to amend the December 10, 2010 filing to state McMeans owned the property and MLI was a leasehold tenant seeking business-loss damages for MLI.
- McMeans separately filed an Answer asserting damages for lost business income and use of the property.
- McMeans then filed a First Amendment to Answer alleging a separate claim for business loss, which the DOT moved to strike.
- Trial court struck both the MLI amendment and McMeans's First Amendment; the issue on appeal is whether that strike was error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McMeans may plead business-loss damages in a condemnation action | McMeans alleged ownership of the business on the property and actual business losses. | DOT contends business losses are recoverable only when owned by a separate lessee or when there is total taking, and not when the owner operates the business on the condemned property. | Yes; McMeans may plead a business-loss claim; the pleadings may be developed to prove ownership and other elements. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in striking the First Amendment to Answer and the MLI amendment | The amendments properly asserted business loss interests and are consistent with case law allowing such claims to be tried despite lack of a separate, specific notice. | The amendments improperly sought to assert business loss for a separate entity and were premature for lack of separate pleading. | Trial court abused its discretion; McMeans may develop the business-loss claim and the amendments should not have been struck. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bill Ledford Motors v. Dept. of Transp., 225 Ga. App. 548 (1997) (business losses are distinct elements recoverable when appropriate)
- Lil Champ Food Stores v. Dept. of Transp., 230 Ga. App. 715 (1998) (clarified pleading requirements for business-loss damages)
- Acree Oil Co., 266 Ga. 336 (1996) (necessity of showing ownership, total taking, and non-speculative loss for business damages)
- Buck's Svc. Station v. Dept. of Transp., 259 Ga. 825 (1990) (evidence of business losses admissible in condemnation context)
- Camvic Corp. v. Dept. of Transp., 284 Ga. App. 321 (2007) (statutory pleading scheme does not require exact separate notice for business losses)
- Cameron v. Miles, 311 Ga. App. 753 (2011) (reversing grant of motion to strike where error based on law)
- Edenfield & Cox, P.C. v. Mack, 282 Ga. App. 816 (2006) (ruling on motion to strike reviewed for abuse of discretion)