Lead Opinion
The question raised in this appeal is whether the exemption under the Open Recоrds Law, OCGA § 50-18-70 et seq., relating to appraisals obtained by the Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) for property it seeks to condemn, extends through the condemnation рrocess or ends upon D.O.T.’s payment into court of its valuation of the property. The trial court held such appraisals are exempt until any litigation involving the condemnation is completed. We affirm.
Lloyd Black, Jr. owned property in Fayette County that the D.O.T. condemned for construction of a public road. Black contestеd the value the D.O.T. paid into court, and filed a request, under the Open Records Law, to inspect the documents and appraisals related to the acquisition of his property. The D.O.T. refused to honor the request and Black filed this mandamus against the D.O.T. to compel production of those records.
The trial court denied the petition under the exemption set out in OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (6):
(a) Public disclosure shall not be required for records that are: ... (6) Real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates, or other records made for or by the state or a local agency relative to the acquisition of real property until such time as the property has been acquired or the proposed transaction has been terminated or abandoned; . . . [emphasis supplied].
Black argues that once a declaration of taking is filed and the money paid into court, title to the property passes to the D.O.T. OCGA § 32-3-7. Thus, he argues, the property is “acquired,” and. the exemption no longer applies.
The issue is one of legislative intent: did the legislaturе, by exempting this evidence until “the property is acquired,” intend to protect aрpraisals until the title passed to the D.O.T. or until the matter was finally resolved? To answer this quеstion, we consider whether such evidence was otherwise available to a condemnation litigant.
It would logically follow that the exception included in the Open Reсords Law was intended by the General Assembly to protect the D.O.T. from having to disclose mаtters involved in condemnation litigation that could not ordinarily be obtained through discovery. Therefore, we conclude that “property has been acquired” for purposes of the Open Records Law exemption only after condemnatiоn proceedings, including any litigation, have been completed.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
This appeal does not involve Black’s efforts, if any, to acquire these documents through discovery in the condemnation case, itself. Such disсovery would be governed by the provision of OCGA § 9-11-26 (b) (1), infra.
Because we have found the аppraisals exempt while litigation is pending under OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (6), we do not reach whether thеy would similarly be exempt under OCGA § 50-18-72 (e), exempting attorney work product.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
OCGA § 32-3-7 (a) provides:
Upon the filing of thе declaration of taking . . . title to the property in fee simple absolute . . . shall vеst in the condemnor; the land shall be deemed to be condemned and taken for thе use of the condemnor. . . .
I do not understand how this provision can be interpreted in аny manner other than as synonymous with “acquire.”
I am authorized to state that Justice Sears-Collins joins in this dissent.