Unified Government of Athens-Clarke Co. v. Stiles Apartments, Inc., 295 Ga. 829

Background

In 1954 Stiles Apartments (appellee) and the City of Athens (predecessor to appellant Unified Government) executed a contract to relocate a sidewalk and construct a paved parking area between South Lumpkin Street and Stiles’ apartment buildings to relieve congestion. Stiles retained title and expressly stated it did not dedicate the land to public use.
The city performed construction; Stiles agreed to pay costs and to restore sidewalks/curb if it discontinued the use. The agreement required the city to maintain the parking area and sidewalk “in the same manner which it would if same were part of the public street system,” but expressly preserved Stiles’ ownership and allowed periodic closure every seven years to protect title.
The relocated sidewalk sits entirely on Stiles’ land; parking spaces straddle Stiles’ land and the former sidewalk area. Stiles paid taxes on the entire parking area.
In the 2000s disputes arose over who controlled access and use of the parking area; the Unified Government asserted Stiles lacked authority to tow or reserve spaces. Stiles sued for temporary and permanent injunctive relief; the trial court granted injunctive relief and found Stiles retained control.
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, addressing whether the 1954 agreement created public property rights or dedication, whether it violated OCGA § 36-30-3(a) (binding successor councils), and whether equitable defenses (statute of limitations, laches, waiver) barred Stiles’ claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Stiles)	Defendant's Argument (Unified Gov.)	Held
Whether the 1954 agreement created public property rights or an easement over Stiles’ land	Agreement did not dedicate land or create public rights; Stiles retained title and control	Agreement gave the public unfettered access and effectively dedicated the parking area to public use	Court held no dedication or easement; contract language and context show parties did not intend public property rights; Stiles retained control
Whether the agreement constituted an unlawful dedication/abandonment of the public right-of-way to a private use	Agreement relieved street congestion and provided sidewalk — served public interest while preserving Stiles’ ownership	Agreement unlawfully converted public right-of-way to private benefit	Court held it did not amount to unlawful dedication; served public purpose and did not abandon right-of-way to a purely private use
Whether the contract violated the prohibition on binding successor councils (OCGA §36-30-3(a))	Contract was proprietary (construction/maintenance of street) and thus not subject to the prohibition	Contract improperly bound future councils and was ultra vires	Court held the agreement was proprietary (construction/maintenance function) and not subject to the prohibition; therefore valid
Whether equitable defenses (statute of limitations, laches, waiver) bar Stiles’ claim for injunctive relief	Stiles in peaceable possession and actively protected title (periodic closures); equitable defenses do not bar its action	Delay, government maintenance, and signage amounted to waiver or estoppel; statutes/timebar apply	Court held equitable defenses do not bar Stiles: peaceable possession protects equitable claim; no waiver shown by Stiles’ conduct

Key Cases Cited

Knott v. Knott, 277 Ga. 380 (contract construction principles)
Lloyd’s Syndicate No. 5820 v. AGCO Corp., 294 Ga. 805 (interpreting unambiguous contracts)
Town of Fort Oglethorpe v. Phillips, 224 Ga. 834 (construction/maintenance of streets are proprietary functions)
City of McDonough v. Campbell, 289 Ga. 216 (prohibition on binding successor councils applies to governmental, not proprietary, functions)
Dunlap v. Tift, 209 Ga. 201 (distinguishing unlawful dedication to private use)
Reid v. Wilkerson, 222 Ga. 282 (equity: laches/statute do not run against peaceable possessor)
Woodside v. City of Atlanta, 214 Ga. 75 (ownership includes right to exclude and control enjoyment)
LN West Paces Ferry Assocs., LLC v. McDonald, 306 Ga. App. 641 (property rights include possession, use, exclusion)