SUMTER COUNTY v. MORRISSUMTER COUNTY v. MORRIS
Property owners and residents of the Statham Lakefront Subdivision seek to require Sumter County to repair roads in their subdivision. The trial court held that the County has no obligation to maintain the roads, but the Court of Appeals vacated that order and remanded the case for the trial court to determine whether there was evidence of “recognition of the streets as public streets or acceptance of the dedication by the public.” This Court granted Sumter County‘s petition for certiorari.1
1. On November 16, 2020, John Morris and 29 other people (collectively, “the plaintiffs“) who were residents of or owned property on Statham Lakefront Road, East Entrekin Road, West Entrekin Road, and Selma Lane in the Statham Lakefront subdivision in Sumter County (collectively, “the Subdivision Roads“) sued Sumter County and its Board of Commissioners,2 asking for a writ of mandamus under
At a hearing in June 2021, evidence was presented showing that the Subdivision Roads had been open to the public since their creation. In 2010, Sumter County signed an easement agreement with the Statham Lakefront subdivision homeowner‘s association that gave the County an easement on one of the Subdivision Roads “for the sole purpose” of road maintenance. The County conducted maintenance on the Subdivision Roads from at least 2010 until 2019, including resurfacing the roads in 2015 and 2017 as part of larger county projects that were paid for with some funds that can be used on non-county roads and some funds that can be used only on county roads. Conflicting evidence was presented as to whether any county-road-only funds were used on the Subdivision Roads. Subdivision residents also sometimes conducted maintenance on the roads. There was no evidence presented that the Subdivision Roads had ever been expressly accepted as county roads at a meeting of the Sumter County Board of County Commissioners, but evidence was presented that the roads were discussed twice at Board meetings, and that the Board chose not to accept them.
(a) The Trial Court Order
In September 2021, the trial court issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for mandamus and declaring that “(1) Sumter County is not the owner of the Subdivision Roads, and (2) neither Sumter County nor the Board is required to maintain or repair the Subdivision Roads.” The court found that “the Board did not accept any offer to dedicate the Subdivision Roads to Sumter County” and instead “consistently rejected offers to dedicate the Subdivision Roads to public use.” The trial court then held that “the fact that the public may have used the Subdivision Roads does not result in Sumter County becoming responsible for the maintenance and repair of these roads.” The court also recognized that Sumter County had performed maintenance on the Subdivision Roads but found that no county-road-only funds were spent to maintain the Subdivision Roads, that the County‘s “work was authorized” by an easement, and that subdivision residents “also performed work on the Subdivision Roads.” The court concluded that
(b) The Court of Appeals Opinion
The plaintiffs appealed the trial court‘s order to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court‘s finding that Sumter County “never expressly accepted any offer to dedicate the roads,” but explained that “lack of express acceptance is not controlling” because “acceptance of a dedication may be implied.” Morris v. Sumter County, 365 Ga. App. 323, 327, 327-328 (878 SE2d 81) (2022). The court further explained that an offer to dedicate may be accepted “by the appropriate public authorities or by the general public.” Id. at 328 (quoting Kaplan v. City of Sandy Springs, 286 Ga. 559, 560 (690 SE2d 395) (2010), with emphasis added). The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by concluding that the plaintiffs were “obligated to demonstrate that the Board had accepted dedication,” stating: “the trial court misconstrued the case law and disregarded the common-law provision that dedication could be accepted not only by the Board but also by recognition of the road as a public road by the public.” Morris, 365 Ga. App. at 329 (emphasis in original).
The Court of Appeals did not expressly address the trial court‘s holding that Sumter County did not impliedly accept the dedication of the Subdivision Roads, but held that the trial court should, on remand, consider the “evidence that the County maintained the roads, using public funds, between 2010 and 2019” in deciding whether the dedication of the road “had been accepted by the general public or whether there was evidence of recognition of the streets as public.” Id. at 329. In light of this analysis, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court‘s decision and “remand[ed] the case for the trial court to consider whether there was evidence of recognition of the streets as public streets or acceptance of the dedication by the public.” Id.
(c) Sumter County‘s Petition for Certiorari
Sumter County petitioned for a writ of certiorari from this Court, and we granted the petition, posing the following question:
Whether the dedication of land by the owner for use as a public road and use by the public of such road, but without express or implied acceptance by the county authorities having jurisdiction over roads, obligates the county to repair and maintain the road.
*
As explained more below, we reaffirm our precedent that a county is not obligated to repair and maintain a road offered for public use by the owner unless the appropriate county authorities have expressly or impliedly accepted the dedication of the roads as public roads. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in remanding this case for the trial court to consider whether the general public accepted the dedication of the Subdivision Roads as public.
We do not know, however, whether the Court of Appeals‘s direction to the trial court to consider “evidence of recognition of the streets as public streets” is meant to direct the trial court to consider the County‘s recognition—meaning implied acceptance—of the streets as public, or to consider the general public‘s recognition. Thus, we remand for the Court of Appeals to clarify this ambiguity by clearly addressing the trial court‘s holding that Sumter County did not impliedly accept the Subdivision Roads.
We begin our discussion with the question posed in granting Sumter County‘s petition for certiorari, which this Court‘s precedent, properly understood, resolves. We then consider and reject the plaintiffs’ attempts to circumvent this precedent and instead rely on inapplicable statutes and cases. Finally, we address the ambiguity in the Court of Appeals‘s opinion and the issue the Court of Appeals should decide on remand.
2. The question posed in this case is whether the public‘s use of otherwise privately owned roads can obligate a county to maintain those roads when, as with the Subdivision
Repairing and maintaining a public road places a significant burden on counties, and this Court has explained that a mere offer of the road to the public or use of the road by the public does not suffice to impose this burden; county authorities must choose to accept a dedication to take on the burden of maintaining the road. As Penick explained:
The existence of a public road carries with it burdens on the county of working it and keeping it in repair, and these burdens could not be imposed on the county simply by an individual dedicating his land for use as a public road, and by the public using the road for travel. Before a road can become a public road, there must at least be some recognition of it as a public road by the county authorities having jurisdiction over roads.
Penick, 131 Ga. at 391 (citations omitted). See also Ga. R. & B. Co. v. Atlanta, 118 Ga. 486, 489 (45 SE 256) (1903) (“Streets are not an unqualified benefit to a municipality; they impose responsibilities, and the acceptance should be by some explicit act on the part of the authorities, and not by vague, indefinite, and inconclusive actions on the part of a body of citizens loosely called the ‘public.‘“) (citation omitted); Kelsoe v. Town of Oglethorpe, 120 Ga. 951, 953 (48 SE 366) (1904) (“Before there can be a dedication to a municipality of a tract of land laid out by the owner as a street to be used by the public,
The cases cited above clearly answer the question we posed in granting certiorari: public acceptance of a road alone does not obligate a county to repair and maintain a road that has been offered for public use; there must be some acceptance, either express or implied, by county authorities to obligate the county to repair and maintain a road.7
3. The plaintiffs argue that we should not follow Penick and its progeny and should look instead to statutes and cases that address different factual scenarios to conclude that mere public use of a road that has been offered to the public by its private owner can obligate the county to care for that road. Specifically, the plaintiffs point to (1)
(a) OCGA § 44-5-230 and related cases
After an owner dedicates land to public use either expressly or by his actions and the land is used by the public for such a length of time that accommodation of the public or private rights may be materially affected by interruption of the right to use such land, the owner may not afterwards appropriate the land to private purposes.
This statute and its predecessors have been cited in cases about land owners’ rights to land that has been dedicated to public use, and—following the statute—those cases have indicated that the dedication of land to the public can be complete if the public accepts the dedication. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 248 Ga. 154, 158 (282 SE2d 76) (1981) (citing Code § 85-410, a predecessor to
Although the concept of “dedication” of roads to the public is common to both the situation at issue in this case (i.e., determining when a county is obligated to repair and maintain a road) and the situation addressed in
Under Civ. Code 1895, § 3591 [a predecessor to
OCGA § 44-5-230 ], if an owner of land expressly or by his acts makes a dedication of it for public use as a public road, and the property is so used for such a length of time that the public accommodations or private rights may be materially affected by an interruption of the enjoyment, such owner cannot afterwards appropriate it for private purposes. However, the dedication of land by the owner thereof for use as a public road, and use by the public of such road as a route of travel, would not of itself make the road a public road so as to charge the county with the burden of its repair and maintenance, unless the dedication was accepted by the county authorities having jurisdiction over roads, or there was evidence of their recognition of the road as a public road showing acceptance.
Penick, 131 Ga. at 391 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Chatham Motorcycle Club, this Court differentiated between what is necessary “to complete the dedication of land by the owner to the public use as a street, road, or highway so as to make the county or city or other political subdivision involved responsible for its upkeep and maintenance, [for which] there must be acceptance of the dedication by the proper public authorities, either express or implied,” from what is necessary to complete a dedication so that “the law considers it in the nature of an estoppel in pais, which precludes the original owner from revoking [the dedication],” for which “acceptance by the public by public use is sufficient to complete the dedication without acceptance by the public authorities of the county.” Chatham Motorcycle Club, 214 Ga. at 774-775.
As Penick and Chatham Motorcycle Club explain, county acceptance is necessary in
Kaplan seems to have been at least partly responsible for the Court of Appeals‘s error in this case because the Court of Appeals cited Kaplan to conclude that “an offer to dedicate may be accepted ‘by the appropriate public authorities or by the general public.‘” Morris, 365 Ga. App. at 328 (emphasis in original). For the reasons discussed above, this was error, and we reject the plaintiffs’ contention that we should apply law addressing when a dedication of land to the public affects a private owner‘s rights in a case like this one, which concerns a county‘s obligation.
(b) OCGA § 32-1-3
The plaintiffs also argue that we should conclude that Sumter County has an obligation to repair and maintain the Subdivision Roads because the roads have been “dedicated” as “public roads” as those terms are defined in
Title 32, the “Georgia Code of Public Transportation,” “provide[s] a code of statutes for the public roads and other transportation facilities of the state, the counties, and
The problem for the plaintiffs’ argument is that even if the Subdivision Roads are “dedicated” “public roads” under
Thus, a county can make roads part of the “county road system,” and the county would then be obligated to maintain those roads under
Accordingly, none of the provisions in Title 32 cited by the plaintiffs or the Court of Appeals obligate Sumter County to repair and maintain the Subdivision Roads if Sumter County has not accepted their dedication as public
*
Having concluded that our precedent answers the question posed in the grant of certiorari in the negative—that is, that public acceptance of a road will not obligate a county to repair and maintain the road in the absence of express or implied acceptance from the county authorities—and that the plaintiffs have not provided a compelling reason to deviate from that precedent, we reverse the Court of Appeals‘s judgment remanding the case for the trial court to consider the public‘s acceptance of the dedication of the Subdivision Roads.
4. We must remand the case to the Court of Appeals, however, due to an ambiguity in the Court of Appeals‘s instruction to the trial court to consider whether there was evidence of “recognition of the streets as public streets.”
As described above, in its opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that “the County did not expressly accept any offer to dedicate the roads” but explained that “acceptance of a dedication may be implied” and then concluded that the trial court “failed to consider” whether the “evidence that the County maintained the roads, using public funds, between 2010 and 2019” “established that dedication had been accepted by the general public or whether there was evidence of recognition of the streets as public, as permitted by common-law provisions.” 365 Ga. App. 323, 327-329 (emphasis added). This italicized phrase could be read to address either the general public‘s recognition, or the county authorities’ recognition.
Notably, the Court of Appeals‘s discussion about the County maintaining the roads appears to focus on the County‘s actions. Moreover, in Penick—which, as discussed above, clearly established that county authorities must accept the dedication of a public road in order to be obligated to repair and maintain it—this Court used wording similar to the italicized phrase the Court of Appeals used in this case to refer to the recognition of roads as public roads by the county, thus signifying implied acceptance by the county authorities. See Penick, 131 Ga. at 391 (“[T]he dedication of land by the owner thereof for use as a public road, and use by the public of such road as a route of travel, would not of itself make the road a public road so as to charge the county with the burden of its repair and maintenance, unless the dedication was accepted by the county authorities having jurisdiction over roads, or there was evidence of their recognition of the road as a public road showing acceptance.“) (emphasis added). See also Savannah Beach, Tybee Island v. Drane, 205 Ga. 14, 14 (52 SE2d 439) (1949) (citing Penick and explaining that “[d]edication and use by the public would not of themselves make a street a public street so as to charge the municipality with the burden of repairs and maintenance and liability for injuries sustained by reason of the defective condition of the street, unless the dedication is accepted by the proper municipal authorities or there is evidence of recognition of the street as a public street“) (emphasis added).
If the Court of Appeals, by using the italicized phrase in Morris, meant to signify recognition by the public, then this decision was erroneous for the reasons discussed above. If, however, the Court of Appeals meant recognition by the county authorities—and therefore implied acceptance by the county authorities—that presents a different question. See, e.g., Ross, 235 Ga. at 310 (explaining that implied acceptance by county authorities can obligate the county to repair and maintain a road).13 Because
Judgment reversed in part, and case remanded with direction. All the Justices concur.
30