Summerour v. City of Marietta
338 Ga. App. 259
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- The City of Marietta sought to condemn property owned by Ray Summerour for an expansion of a recreation center funded by a parks bond.
- The City made initial written offers in 2010 ($85,000) and 2013 (various amounts totalling roughly $141,700), but did not provide a substantive summary of the appraisal basis until 2014 after repeated requests.
- Summerour engaged counsel and his own appraiser, requested appraisal information, and complained the City failed to provide the summary required by OCGA § 22-1-9(3).
- The City filed a condemnation petition in October 2014; a special master held a three-day hearing, found the City complied with the statute, and set fair market value at $225,000.
- The trial court adopted the special master’s return; Summerour appealed, arguing (1) statutory noncompliance with OCGA § 22-1-9(3), (2) bad-faith negotiations in violation of OCGA § 22-1-9(7), and (3) the special master should be allowed to complete the record/discovery.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for further proceedings, concluding the City initially failed to provide the required pre-negotiation summary and that the bad-faith issue and discovery must be revisited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City complied with OCGA § 22-1-9(3)’s requirement to provide a written statement and summary of the basis for its just-compensation amount before initiating negotiations | Summerour: City failed to provide a meaningful summary before negotiations; initial 2010/2013 letters were insufficient | City: its written offers stating appraised value satisfied the statute | Court: 2010 and 2013 communications did not meet § 22-1-9(3); City only complied in 2014 (too late); trial court erred |
| Whether the City acted in bad faith in negotiating (OCGA § 22-1-9(7)) | Summerour: delay and failure to provide the required summary support a finding of bad faith | City: contends negotiations were continuous and in good faith | Court: Remanded to develop the record on bad faith given statutory noncompliance; special master’s cursory finding insufficient |
| Whether the case should be dismissed as remedy for statutory violations or another remedy ordered | Summerour: sought dismissal of condemnation petition | City: opposed dismissal; proceeded with condemnation | Court: Declined to decide proper remedy on appeal; remanded for trial court to address remedies after further proceedings |
| Whether the special master/trial court should permit discovery/recommit the matter for completion of the record | Summerour: requested recommittal to obtain evidence and test whether initial offers equaled full appraised value | City: had provided later appraisal materials; argued hearing sufficed | Court: Remanded to allow trial court to reconsider recommitment and discovery related to statutory directives |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 (Fifth Amendment just compensation principle)
- Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (takings doctrine discussion)
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (takings and compensation)
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (regulation-as-taking principle)
- City of Atlanta v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 246 Ga. 424 (definition of bad faith in condemnation context)