Tisdale v. City of Cumming
326 Ga. App. 19
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Tisdale appeals a trial court order denying an injunction seeking a declaration that the City’s 2012 real estate acquisition was ultra vires and void under OCGA § 50-14-1 et seq.
- The City purchased property in Pilgrim Ridge; March 20, 2012, an Executive Session discussed the purchase for potential water facilities near the existing intake.
- On April 16, 2012, deeds reflecting the purchase were recorded; on April 17, 2012, the council ratified the mayor’s authorization to purchase for $25,000 per acre at a public meeting.
- Tisdale attended the March 20 and April 17 meetings and filed suit on October 12, 2012.
- The trial court held the April 17 meeting compliant with the Act but found the Executive Session on March 20 possibly noncompliant; it ruled the claim time-barred under OCGA § 50-14-1(b)(2).
- The court concluded Tisdale’s action was time-barred because she knew or should have known of the violation by April 17, 2012, and because the deeds provided constructive notice of the transaction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action was timely under OCGA 50-14-1(b)(2). | Tisdale seeks six-month repose if minutes were discovered late. | Timeliness governs; constructive notice and knowledge date start the 90-day clock. | Timeliness barred; 90 days ran by April 17, 2012. |
| Whether the six-month repose applies to known violations. | Knowledge of violation was obtained after discovery of redacted minutes. | Repose begins when plaintiff knew or should have known, not when discovered. | Six-month repose does not toll the 90-day period here; no tolling. |
| Whether constructive notice from recorded deeds affects timeliness. | Constructive notice could delay accrual. | Deeds provide constructive notice; knowledge accrued by April 17, 2012. | Constructive notice started the clock by April 17, 2012. |
| Whether any violation in Executive Session can invalidate the City’s purchase after subsequent compliance. | Violation could render the purchase void unless later ratified by compliant meeting. | Bd. of Commrs. v. Levetan controls; publicly ratified decisions are valid if later compliant. | We do not need to address merits under the Act because timely dismissal forecloses claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Commrs. v. Levetan, 270 Ga. 544 (Ga. 1999) (compliance after the fact can validate subsequent action)
- Leeds Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Sears Mtg. Corp., 267 Ga. 300 (Ga. 1996) (deed recording provides constructive notice)
- Shepherd v. Frasier, 223 Ga. 874 (Ga. 1968) (constructive notice from filed deed bars claim)
- Schmidt v. Parnes, 194 Ga. App. 622 (Ga. App. 1990) (statute of limitation or repose not tolled when plaintiff knows facts)
- Pfeiffer v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827 (Ga. 2002) (summary-judgment standards; plaintiffs must raise viable theories)
- Walker v. City of Warner Robins, 262 Ga. 551 (Ga. 1992) (limitations issue governed by statute)
- Anti-Landfill Corp., Inc. v. North American Metal Co., LLC, 299 Ga. App. 509 (Ga. App. 2009) (court addresses limitations and repose in Open Meetings Act context)