Aрpellee City of Villa Rica (“City”) negotiated for the purchase of a right-of-way from appellant H. G. Brown Family Limited Partnership (“Partnership”). A nine paragraph contract was drafted to memoriаlize the resulting
Thereafter, the City upheld most of its obligations under the contract, including the payment of all money due to the Partnership. The City, however, failed to perform its obligations under Paragraph 4, regarding the reclamation of wetlаnds on the Partnership’s property. When the Partnership requested voluntary compliance with Paragraph 4, the City argued that the entire contract was ultra vires because it was not properly approved by the city council and was not recorded in the council’s official minutes. After determining that its claim for breach of contract was barred by sovereign immunity, the Partnership sought mandamus reliеf that would compel the City to validate the contract by entering it into the council’s official minutes. The superior court denied the mandamus petition, holding that because the contract was ultrа vires, it was not legally binding on the City.
1. A municipality has no inherent power; it may only exercise power to the extent it has been delegated authority by the state. 1 A municipality’s allocations of power from the state must be strictly construed. 2 Accordingly, we have long recognized that a municipality’s ability to enter into contracts is limited. 3 It is established that “ ‘[a] municipal corporation may bind itself by, and cаnnot abrogate, any contract which it has the right to make under its charter.’ ” 4 However, if a local government enters a contract in abrogation of its delegated power or in excess of its authority to enter contracts, then the contract is deemed ultra vires and void. 5
The exact status of a defective contract... depends upon the type of limitation which the local government has ignored in making it. If the contract was imperfectly or irregularly executed, it may not necessarily be completely ineffective, as long as it was the type of contract within the pоwer of the local government to make. But if the limitation ignored was one which placed the contract completely beyond the power or competence of the local government, then the contract will be termed ultra vires, and its status is an absolute nullity. 6
Where a city charter specifically provides how a municipal contract shall be made and executed, the city may only make a contract in the method prescribed; otherwise, “the contract is invalid and unenforceable.” 7 Amunicipality’s method of contracting, once prescribed by law or charter, is absolute and exclusive. 8
The undisputed facts, as discussed above, show that the contraсt between the Partnership and the City was neither drafted by nor submitted to the city attorney before authorization from the council was sought; was not approved by a quorum of the council; and was not аuthorized by the council before being signed by the Mayor. Moreover, the contract was not considered by the council in conjunction with an open public meeting, as required by the Georgia Code. 15
The officer, body, or board duly authorized must act on behalf of the municipality, otherwise a valid contract cannot be created. . . . [T]he governing body . . . must act at a legal meeting and as a bоard, since the individual members acting singly have no authority to bind the municipality. 16
It follows that the City entered the contract in derogation of its limited grant of authority; in other words, the City acted “beyond the powеr or competence of the local government.” 17 Therefore, we have no choice but to conclude that the contract is ultra vires, null and void.
2. As the facts set out above demonstrаte, this is not a case where the City simply exercised its legitimate powers in an unusual or irregular fashion. Rather, it involves a situation where the City acted with a total absence of power and in direсt contradiction to the strictures of its charter. 18 Where, as here, a municipality contracts with a total absence of power, it is not estopped from denying the resulting agreement’s validity. 19
The еffect upon the Partnership of this determination is significant, “because, legally, there never was a contract____”
20
Accordingly, the Partnership cannot seek whole or partial performanсe of the
contract through mandamus or other means,
21
and the City’s substantial performance under the contract will not be treated as a ratification thereof.
22
Furthermore, as noted, the City is
While this conclusion may, at first blush, appear unfair, there are compelling policy concerns that support it. The limitations placed on the City’s ability to contract include numerous checks that are designed to prevent impropеr action by the City, which could have disastrous consequences for taxpayers.
To allow the [ultra vires] agreement to appear effective in any sense, even quasi-contractually . . . would amount to permitting the local government to expand its own powers rather than requiring it to rely upon state legislative delegation. Indeed, this would annul the limitation itself and sanction the local government’s accomplishing indirectly that which it could not directly achieve. From this ... it would be but a short step to governmental extravagance with resulting unreasonable risks and liabilities being heaped upon the shoulders of local taxpayers. A strict rule of absolute nullity, therefore, will nip these dangerous tendencies at the outset and, viewed in this light, is “consistent with principles of equity and fair dealing.” 24
Accоrdingly, because the City acted without any power, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying mandamus relief that would have compelled the City to enter the contract in its officiаl minutes, thereby validating it.
3. Having reviewed the trial court’s order, we do not believe (1) that the court found that the subject matter of the contract was outside the scope of the City’s power to contract, or (2) thаt the court found that by its actions, the City improperly bound future councils. Therefore, we reject the Partnership’s contrary arguments.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Ga. Const. (1983), Art. IX, Sec. II, Par. II; OCGA§ 36-34-1 et seq.
See Koehler v. Massell,
Kemp v. City of Claxton,
Precise v. City of Rossville,
Jonesboro Area Athletic Assn. v. Dickson,
Precise,
Sentell, supra at 543.
McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Vol. 10, § 29.21 (1999).
Id.;
Murray County v. Pickering,
1975 Ga. Laws, p. 4575.
Charter of the City of Villa Rica, Georgia (“Charter”), § 2.10.
Charter § 2.17.
Charter § 2.23.
Charter § 6.40.
Id.
OCGA§ 50-14-1 (b) (“Any... official action of an agenсy [which, as defined in the section, includes a municipality] . . . made at a meeting which is not open to the public as required by this chapter shall not be binding.”).
McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Vol. 10, § 29.15 (1999).
Precise,
See
City of Summerville,
Id.
Sentell, supra at 544. See
CSX Transp.,
See
Douglas v. Austin-Western Road Machinery Co.,
Sentell, supra at 544; McQuillin, supra at § 29.10, p. 285.
City of Summerville v. Ga. Power Co.,
supra at 846 (a municipality is not estopped to deny the validity of a contract wholly heyond its powers); Sentell, supra at 544; McQuillin, suрra at § 29.10, p. 285. The precedent cited by the Partnership does not require a contrary result.
Malcom v. Fulton County,
Sentell, supra at 545.