When the condemnor has paid into the registry of the court the amount provided for in the award of the special master or the special master panel, if such a panel exists, for the use and benefit of and subject to the demands of the condemnees, the effect of such payment into the registry of the court shall be the same as if paid to the condemnees directly, provided that the clerk shall pay out the money to the condemnees or their personal representatives upon proper proof submitted to him or her as to the quantity of their interests. Where there are conflicting claims, the clerk may require the conflicting parties to establish their claims before the court as is provided by law in other similar matters.
(Ga. L. 1957, p. 387, § 16; Ga. L. 1998, p. 1539, § 9.)
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 27 Am. Jur. 2d, Eminent Domain, § 548 et seq.
C.J.S.- 29A C.J.S., Eminent Domain, § 550 et seq.
ARTICLE 3 PROCEEDING BEFORE COURT
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
The purpose of this special condemnation statute is to afford a speedy and fair means whereby the public authorities may acquire a clear title to the lands sought for public purposes, and the landowner and all parties concerned may receive their just compensation therefor. Denham v. State Hwy. Bd., 52 Ga. App. 790, 184 S.E. 631 (1936).
The purpose and the mandatory requirement of Ga. L. 1914, p. 92, § 1 et seq. is for the condemnor to pay the amount of the award into the registry of the court so that it may be disbursed after a judgment has been taken against the property described in the petition and to those responding parties whom the judge, after hearing their respective claims thereto, finds to be justly entitled. Kreutz v. Housing Auth., 107 Ga. App. 315, 130 S.E.2d 134 (1963).
In proceeding under Ga. L. 1914, p. 92, § 1 et seq., speedy action and progress is to be obtained so far as possible, and the statutes providing therefor must be strictly pursued. Denham v. State Hwy. Bd., 52 Ga. App. 790, 184 S.E. 631 (1936).
Fact that State of Georgia is condemnor does not deprive condemnee of equal protection of law since the condemnee is authorized to make any valid defense in the condemnation proceeding itself. Russell v. Venable, 216 Ga. 137, 115 S.E.2d 103 (1960).
Ga. L. 1914, p. 92, § 1 et seq. is general law, and may be amended by another general law in accord with the state Constitution. Russell v. Venable, 216 Ga. 137, 115 S.E.2d 103 (1960).
Ga. L. 1914, p. 92, § 1 et seq. makes adequate provision for anyone claiming interest to assert equitable as well as legal rights to the property in the condemnation proceeding itself. Mitchell v. State Hwy. Dep't, 216 Ga. 517, 118 S.E.2d 88 (1961).
All legal and equitable issues relevant to the condemnation of a piece of land may be raised in a single proceeding, unless principles of waiver or estoppel apply. DeKalb County v. Jackson-Atlantic Co., 123 Ga. App. 695, 182 S.E.2d 160 (1971).
All matters in opposition to petition to condemn property must be filed in condemnation proceeding, when the petition is filed under the provisions of Ga. L. 1914, p. 92, § 1 et seq. Howard v. Housing Auth., 220 Ga. 640, 140 S.E.2d 880 (1965).
Prior to enactment of Ga. L. 1914, p. 92, § 1 et seq., there were no pleadings in condemnation proceeding, and no hearings provided for before the presiding judge prior to appeal; questions pertaining to the right to condemn, the constitutionality of the proceedings, and similar questions, could be made by the condemnee only in a separate bill in equity. Martin v. Fulton County, 213 Ga. 761, 101 S.E.2d 716 (1958).
Constitutionality of statute may be questioned in separate equity proceeding.
- When the condemnee contends that the proceedings were brought under an unconstitutional statute, the validity of the statute may be called in question under a separate proceeding in equity. Martin v. Fulton County, 213 Ga. 761, 101 S.E.2d 716 (1958).
Injunction available when remedy at law not adequate.
- In condemnation proceedings under Ga. L. 1914, p. 92, § 1 et seq., a bill for injunction will lie when the remedy at law is not adequate and complete. Martin v. Fulton County, 213 Ga. 761, 101 S.E.2d 716 (1958).
Equitable defenses and pleadings may be filed in condemnation proceedings.
- While it has been held that a separate petition in equity for injunction may, in certain instances, be brought to restrain a condemnation proceeding filed under this chapter, it does not necessarily follow that equitable defenses and equitable pleadings may not be filed in such a condemnation proceeding, as in other actions at law. Martin v. Fulton County, 213 Ga. 761, 101 S.E.2d 716 (1958).
Use and review of motions to dismiss.
- Former Code 1933, § 36-1106 (see O.C.G.A. § 22-2-132) specifically provides the nature and character of the objections which may be urged before the presiding judge, which include "any other matters material to their respective rights"; matters pertaining to the rights of the condemnee might therefore be raised by general and special demurrers (now motions to dismiss) as in other cases, and an adverse ruling on a general demurrer (now motion to dismiss) can be reviewed by a direct bill of exceptions prior to any final judgment in the condemnation case. Martin v. Fulton County, 213 Ga. 761, 101 S.E.2d 716 (1958).
Ga. L. 1914, p. 92, § 1 et seq. does not provide for any method of review of interlocutory orders, and the only final judgment in this proceeding is the judgment of award. Stewart v. Board of Comm'rs, 66 Ga. App. 108, 17 S.E.2d 203 (1941).
Condemnee cannot halt proceedings at any stage before appointment of assessors and award by interposing a demurrer to the petition filed by the condemnor. Denham v. State Hwy. Bd., 52 Ga. App. 790, 184 S.E. 631 (1936).
Former Code 1933,
§ 6-503 applicable to appeals in condemnation proceedings. - The provisions of former Code 1933, § 6-503 (see O.C.G.A. § 5-3-8) required the consent of the opposite party before an appeal may be dismissed, were applicable to appeals in condemnation proceedings instituted under Ga. L. 1914, p. 92, § 1 et seq. State Hwy. Dep't v. Blalock, 98 Ga. App. 630, 106 S.E.2d 552 (1958).
Issue of whether condemnee intends to dedicate land to public use is an issue that the trial judge should rule on in a pretrial order. DeKalb County v. Jackson-Atlantic Co., 123 Ga. App. 695, 182 S.E.2d 160 (1971).
Whether a condemnee dedicated a large portion of the land to public use is a mixed question of law and fact concerning the nature and amount of the land in issue, and its determination is for the trial judge. DeKalb County v. Jackson-Atlantic Co., 123 Ga. App. 695, 182 S.E.2d 160 (1971).
When there is no express dedication for public use and the requisite intent must be implied, the acts relied upon to establish such dedication must be such as clearly showed a purpose on the part of the owner to abandon the owner's own personal dominion over such property, and to devote the property to a definite public use. DeKalb County v. Jackson-Atlantic Co., 123 Ga. App. 695, 182 S.E.2d 160 (1971).
When condemnor pays award of assessors into registry of court, the condemnor is not thereafter concerned with the award's distribution. Kreutz v. Housing Auth., 107 Ga. App. 315, 130 S.E.2d 134 (1963).
Tender of award to owner not condition precedent to condemnor's appeal.
- When a proceeding in rem is brought to condemn property for a public use under the provisions of Ga. L. 1914, p. 92, § 1 et seq., tender of the amount awarded by the assessors to the apparent or ostensible owner of such property is not a condition precedent to the condemnor's right to pay the award into the registry of the court and enter an appeal to a jury. State Hwy. Dep't v. Farmers Gin Co., 216 Ga. 70, 114 S.E.2d 537, answer conformed to, 102 Ga. App. 35, 115 S.E.2d 760 (1960).
Question of value is sole issue for jury on appeal.
- While all issues may be raised in an appeal from the assessors' award, the question of value is the sole issue to be submitted to the jury, and its fact-finding powers are limited to those facts directly touching on value. DeKalb County v. Jackson-Atlantic Co., 123 Ga. App. 695, 182 S.E.2d 160 (1971).
Motion to dismiss appeal in condemnation proceedings under Ga. L. 1914, p. 92, § 1 et seq., which was regulated by former Code 1933, § 36-601 et seq. (see O.C.G.A. § 22-2-130 et seq.), fell in a different category from an oral motion to strike pleadings, amendments, or answers, since the motion to dismiss the appeal raised issues of fact. Murray v. State Hwy. Dep't, 103 Ga. App. 517, 120 S.E.2d 48 (1961).
Ruling on oral motion to strike motion to dismiss.
- Trial court, in passing upon an oral motion to strike and dismiss the motion to dismiss an appeal in condemnation proceedings, can consider the evidence. Murray v. State Hwy. Dep't, 103 Ga. App. 517, 120 S.E.2d 48 (1961).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALDate of taking is date of special master's or assessor's award. 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 70-116.
State Highway Department (now Department of Transportation) has authority to condemn private property to construct sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and the department has authority to condemn private property for any and all necessary drainage ditches in connection with the construction and maintenance of any road or highway on the State Highway System. 1950-51 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 432.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
- Limitation applicable to action or proceeding by owner for compensation where property is taken in exercise of eminent domain without antecedent condemnation proceeding, 123 A.L.R. 676.
Condemnation of premises or part thereof as affecting rights of landlord and tenant inter se, 163 A.L.R. 679.
Condemnor's waiver, surrender, or limitation, after award, of rights or part of property acquired by condemnation, 5 A.L.R.2d 724.
Right to open and close argument in trial of condemnation proceedings, 73 A.L.R.2d 613.
Power of eminent domain as between state and subdivision or agency thereof, or as between different subdivisions or agencies themselves, 35 A.L.R.3d 1293.
Condemned property's location in relation to proposed site of building complex or similar improvement as factor in fixing compensation, 51 A.L.R.3d 1050.
State statute of limitations applicable to inverse condemnation or similar proceedings by landowner to obtain compensation for direct appropriation of land without the institution or conclusion of formal proceedings against specific cover, 26 A.L.R.4th 68.