The MASHBURN FAMILY TRUSTS v. CITY OF CUMMING Et Al.
340 Ga. App. 616
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- The Mashburn Family Trusts obtained a land-disturbing permit from the City of Cumming to remediate a breached dam and began demolition on June 16, 2014.
- After heavy rain on June 23, 2014, the City issued a stop work order on June 24, 2014, citing sediment release into water.
- The City lifted the stop work order on June 30, 2014, and the Trusts completed the demolition work.
- The Trusts appealed the stop work order to the City’s zoning board on July 23, 2014; the board denied the appeal.
- The Trusts then appealed the board’s denial to the superior court; the City moved to dismiss, and the superior court dismissed the appeal, finding the matter moot among other grounds.
- The Court of Appeals granted discretionary review and affirmed the superior court’s dismissal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of appeal from stop work order | Mashburns sought rescission of the stop work order and contended review remained necessary | City argued the order had been lifted and demolition completed, so judicial relief would have no practical effect | Appeal is moot because the stop work order was lifted and work completed; rescission relief already occurred |
| Adverse collateral consequences exception to mootness | Mashburns implied potential collateral harms from having had an order issued | City argued no showing of ongoing adverse collateral effects on the Trusts | Trusts failed to show sufficient adverse collateral consequences; exception does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Randolph County v. Johnson, 282 Ga. 160 (2007) (mootness when rights cannot be enforced by judicial determination)
- Carlock v. Kmart Corp., 227 Ga. App. 356 (1997) (ruling moot if it would have no practical effect)
- Cotton v. First Nat. Bank of Gwinnett County, 235 Ga. 511 (1975) (issue moot where requested relief already occurred)
- In the Interest of I. S., 278 Ga. 859 (2005) (requirement to show adverse collateral consequences to avoid mootness)
- In the Interest of J. R. P., 287 Ga. App. 621 (2007) (appellants failed to demonstrate adverse collateral consequences)
- McAuley v. Wills, 164 Ga. App. 812 (1982) (appellate affirmance permissible if trial court correct for any reason)