FI FTH DI VI SI ON M ERCI ER, C. J. , M C FA DDEN, P. J. , and RI CKM A N, J.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a ll y r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

June 4, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 1 83. D EPA RTM EN T OF TRA N SPORTA TI ON v

. STA R LA ND H OLD IN GS, LLC et al.

M C F A D D E N , Presid ing J u d ge.

This is an ap p eal b y the D e p artment o f Tra n s p o r ta t i o n f ro m an ord er o f the

su p erio r c o u rt granting Star Land H o ld in g s , LLC’ s mo tio n to set a sid e, v ac ate, and

annu l a dec laratio n of tak ing o n the gro u nd that the d ep artment had no t c o mp lied w ith

tw o pro v isio ns o f the L a nd o wner’ s B ill o f Rights and Priv ate Pro p erty Pro tec tio n A ct

o f 2006

. See Ga. L. 2006 , p

. 40. The d ep artment argu es that v io latio ns o f t he A c t are

no t a basis f

o r setting asid e, v ac ating, and annu lli n g a d ec laratio n o f tak ing u nd er

OCGA § 32- 3- 11 , t he statu te that grants su perio r c o urts limited au tho rity to tak e su c h

ac tio n, bu t w e ho ld t hat su c h v io latio ns are enc o mp assed w ithin the su p erio r c o u rts’

au tho rity u nd er the statu t e.The d ep artment also argu es that the su p erio r c ou rt e rred in f ind ing that it had

v io lated tw o p ro visio ns o f the A ct, OCGA § 22- 1

- 9 (2), w hic h requ ires the

c o nd emning au tho rity to giv e the p ro perty o w ner the o p p o rtu nity t o ac c o mp any the

ap p raiser d u ring his insp ec tio n o f t he p ro p erty, a nd OCGA § 22- 1

- 9 (3) , w h i c h

requ ires the c o nd emning au tho rity to p r o v id e the p ro p erty o w ner w ith a w ritten

su mmary o f the basis f

o r its estimatio n o f j ust co mp e nsat i o n

. W e ho ld that the

su p erio r c o u rt did no t err in f ind ing that the d ep artment v io lated OCGA § 22- 1

- 9 (2)
(requ iring an o p p o r tu nity to a c c o m p any the ap p raiser) and , o n the basis o f that

v io latio n, entering an o rd er u nd er OCGA § 32- 3- 1 1 to set asid e, vac ate, and annu l the

d ec laratio n o f tak ing. So w e d o no t reac h the issu e o f whether the su perio r c o urt erred

in f ind ing that the dep artment also vio lated OCGA § 22- 1

- 9 (3). Fo r these reaso ns, w e

af f irm.

1

. Fa ctu a l a n d pro c

edu ra l b a ckgro u n d

“I n r e view ing a no n- j u ry j u d gment, an ap p ellate c o u rt w ill no t r ev e rse the lo we r

c o u rt’ s f ind ing[s] of f

ac t if there is a ny ev id enc e to su p p o rt [them]. ” D ept. o f Tra n s p.

v

. B & G Rea lty , 1 97 G a. A p p

. 6 1 3, 6 1 5 (1 ) (39 8 SE2d 7 6 2) (1 9 90) (c it at i o n a n d

p u nc tu atio n o mitted ).

2So v iew ed , t he rec ord sho w s that the d ep artment f iled a p etitio n in the su p erio r

c o u rt u nd er OCGA §§ 32- 3- 4 thro u gh 32- 3- 1 9 to ac qu ire b y c o nd emnatio n f ee simp le

title to a right o f w ay as w ell a s c o nstru c t io n an d m a i n tenanc e easements f o r a state
highw ay pro j ec t in Gw innett Co u nty. I t a ttac hed to the p etitio n a d ec laratio n o f tak ing

and d ep osited into the c o u rt r egistry a su m of mo ney e stimated as j u st co mp ensatio n.

This f iling ef f ec t ed a transf

e r o f t i t l e

. See D ors ey v

. D ept. o f T ra ns p. , 248 Ga. 34, 36
(27 9 SE2d 7 0 7 ) (1 9 81 ).

Star Land H old ings, the p ro p erty o w ner, f iled a “p etitio n t o set asid e, v ac ate,

and /o r annu l c ond emno r ’ s d ec laratio n o f tak ing an d d i s m i s s co n d e m n o r ’s p etitio n f o r

c o nd e m n a t io n u nd er OCGA § 32- 3- 1 1

. ” It alleged that the d ep artment had no t

c o mp lied w ith tw o pro v isio ns of the Land o w ner’ s B ill o f Rights a nd Priv ate Pro p erty

Pro tec tio n A c t. Sp ec if

ic ally, it alleged that the d ep artment f ail e d to af

f o rd it an

o p p o rtu nity to ac co mp any the d ep art m ent’ s ap praiser d u ring his insp e c tio n o f the

p ro p e rty, as requ ired b y O C GA § 22- 1- 9 (2), and that the d e p a rtment’ s p rec o nd emnatio n o f

f e r d i d n o t c o mp ly w ith OCGA § 22- 1

- 9 (3) bec au se it f ailed to

p ro v id e inf

o rmatio n s u f

f i c i e nt f o r Star Land H o ld ings to meaningf u lly ev alu ate the

o f f er. Star Land H o ld ings ask ed the s u p e r i o r c o u r t t o s et asid e a nd annu l the

3d ec laratio n o f tak ing and to d ismiss the petitio n fo r c ond emnatio n that ac c o m p anied

the d ec laratio n o f

tak ing.

A f ter a hearing, the su perio r c o u rt granted Sta r L a nd H o ld ings’ p etitio n. We
granted t he d ep artment’ s ap plic atio n f o r interlo cu to ry ap p eal, and t his ap p eal

f o llo w ed

.

2. The La n do wn er’

s Bi l l o f Ri ghts a nd Pri

v a t e P ro perty Pro tecti

o n Act

The d ep artment argu es that no nc o mp lianc e w ith OCGA § 22- 1- 9 o f the

Land o w ner’ s B ill o f R i g h t s a n d P r iv ate Pro perty Pro tec t io n A c t is no t a basis f o r
setting asid e a d ec laratio n o f tak ing. W e d isagree.

W e f irst o bserv e that the d ep artment co nc ed es that OCGA § 22- 1

- 9 ap p lies to

c o nd emnatio ns und er T itle 32, su c h as the c o nd emnatio n here. We agree, bec au se the

statu te itself states that it ap p lies to “ all c o nd emnatio ns and p o tential

c o nd emnatio ns[. ]” OCGA § 22- 1

- 9

. See also OCGA § 32- 3- 2 (“ A ll ac qu isitio n o f

p ro p e rty o r interests f

o r p u blic ro ad and o ther transp o rtatio n p u rp o ses shall p ro c eed

u nd er the metho d s set o ut in t his artic le and in Title 22. ” ); Fi n cher Ro a d In v es tmen ts

v

. C i ty of C a n to n , 334 Ga. A p p

. 502 (7 7 9 SE2d 7 17 ) (201 5 ) (p hysic al p rec ed ent o nly)

4(ap p lying OCGA § 2 2

- 1

- 1 2, a p ro v isio n o f the A c t, to a d ec laratio n- o f

- tak ing

c o nd emnatio n u nd e r OCGA § 32- 3- 6).

I nstead , the d ep artment argu es that a f ailu re t o c o m p ly w ith OCGA § 22- 1

- 9 is

no t o ne o f t he limited c irc u mstanc es a su p e rio r c o urt may c o nsid er f o r setting asid e

a d ec laratio n o f tak ing u nd er OCGA § 32- 3- 1 1

. W e d isagree.

I n C i t y o f Ma ri e tta v

. Su mmero u r , 302 Ga. 6 45 (807 SE2d 324) (201 7 ), o u r

Su p reme Co u rt c o nsid ered the ap p ro p r i at e r emed y f o r a c o nd emno r ’s f

ailu re to

c o mp ly w ith OCGA § 22- 1 -9 o f the A c t. I t first held that the pro v isio ns o f OCGA 22-

1

- 9 are no t mere gu id anc e f o r the c o nd emning au t ho rity. 302 Ga. at 6 54- 6 56 ( 2 )

. Rather, it held , “c o mp lianc e w ith Sec tio n 22- 1

- 9 is an essential prerequ isite to the

f iling of a p etitio n to c o nd emn,” id

. at 6 46 , that “ c o mp lianc e

. . . is requ ired t o t he

extent t hat c o mp lianc e is ‘ p rac tic a ble[,]’ ” id

. at 6 56 ( 2), and t h a t t h e g o v ernment

mu st stric tly c o mp ly. I d. a t 6 59 (4). The c o u rt c o nc lu d e d th a t a c o nd emno r’ s

“ fail[u re] to fu lf

ill that p r e r e q u i s i t e ” r equ ires the d ismissal of t he p etitio n to

c o nd emn. I d

. at 6 46

.
The d ep artment argu es that the d isc ussio n o f remed y in Su mmero u r , su p ra, is
inap p lic able to this c ase bec au se the c o nd e m natio n in Su mmero u r w a s p u rsu ed u nd er

5Title 22, w hile this c ase inv o lv es a d ec larat i o n

- o f

- t a k i n g c o nd e mnatio n u nd er Title 32.

See generally D i

lla rd La n d In v es tmen ts v

. Fu lto n C o un ty , 29 5 Ga. 51 5 (1 ) n. 1 (7 6 1 SE2d
282) (201 4) (There are “ three primary Geo rgia statu to ry p ro c ed u res f o r c o nd emning

p r o p erty. [The sp ec ial master metho d , see OCGA § 22- 2- 1 0 0 to § 22- 2- 1 1 4 , ] t h e

mu c h o ld er assesso rs metho d , (c o d if ied as a mend ed at OCGA §§ 22- 2- 1 to 22- 2- 86 ),

. . . and the d e c laratio n o f tak ing metho d , (c o d if ied as amend ed at OCGA §§ 32- 3- 4

to 32- 3- 20). ” ) (c itatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ). W e ho ld that O C G A § 32- 3- 1 1

grants su p erio r c o u rts au tho rity to set asid e, v ac ate, and annu l d ec laratio ns o f tak ing

f o r v io latio ns o f

OCGA § 22- 1

- 9

.
OCGA § 32- 3- 1 1 p ro v id e s that

the j u d ge o f the su p e r i o r c o u rt shall hav e the au tho rity to s et asid e,

v ac ate, and annu l t h e d e c l a ratio n o f tak ing, to gether w ith any t itle

ac qu ired thereby, in the same way and manner and f or t he same reaso ns

as are p ro v id e d by Co d e Sec tio ns 23- 2- 6 0[, whic h c onc e r n s e q u itable

annu lments of co nv eyanc e s bec au se o f frau d , ] and 9

- 1 1 -6 0[, w hic h

c o nc erns metho d s f

o r seek ing relief

f ro m j u dgments].

OCGA § 32- 3- 1 1 (a). The statu te restric ts the c o urt’ s p o w e r to the f o llo w ing

qu estio ns:

6(1 ) Frau d o r bad faith, as c o ntemp lated by Co d e S e c t i o n s 23- 2- 6 0 a nd

9

- 1 1 -6 0; (2) The imp ro p er u se o f the p o w ers of this artic le, su c h as a re

no t c o ntemp lated by this artic le; (3) The abu se o r misu se o f the p o wers

o f this arti c l e ; a n d ( 4) Su c h o ther qu estio ns a s may p ro p erly be raised , inc lu d ing the qu e stio n o f w hether o r no t this a rtic le has been inv o k ed in

s o m e r esp e c t beyo nd the p riv ileges c o nf erred by this artic le or by a n

u nau tho riz ed agenc y, c o u nty, o r mu nic ip ality.

OCGA § 32- 3- 1 1 (b).

H ere, t he su p erio r c o u rt held that b ec a u s e the d ep artment f ailed to co mp ly w ith

OCGA § 22- 1

- 9 ( 2) an d ( 3 ) , “ its u se o f c ond emnatio n w as imp ro p e r, misu sed and

abu sed

. ” So the c ou rt set asid e , v ac ated , and a nnu lled the d ec laratio n o f tak ing u nd er

OCGA § 32- 3- 1 1. The trial c ou rt d id no t err.

W e reac h this c o nc lu sio n in relianc e o n S u mmero u r , su p ra. There o u r Su p reme

Co u rt held that the p u rp o se o f the A c t is to “ p ro tec t p ro p erty o w ners fro m a b u s e o f

the po wer o f emi n en t do ma i

n at all stages o f t he c o nd emnatio n pro c ess. ” 302 G a. at 6 52
(2) (emp hasis s u p p lied )

. Part o f that pro tec tio n, the c o u rt r easo ned , is OCGA § 22- 1

-

9 , wh i ch i m p o s e s, a s d etailed abo v e, mand ato ry p r erequ isites to t he extent c omp lianc e

is p rac tic able. 302 Ga. at 6 5 4- 6 56 (2). A nd t he c ou rt held t hat bec au se the co nd emno r

there “ v io lat[ed ] the law ,” id

. at 6 59 (4), by f ailing to c o mp ly w ith OCGA § 22- 1

- 9,

7it “ ac t ed o u tsid e its au t ho rity by c o nd emning [the c o nd e mnee’ s] p ro p erty.

. . ” I d

. at

6 6 0 (4).

I t f o llo w s that the f

ailu r e to c o mp ly with the mand ato r y p rerequ isites o f OCGA

§ 22- 1

- 9 to t he extent prac tic able amo u nts to a v io latio n o f law , is o u tsid e the

c o nd emno r’ s c o nd emnatio n au tho rity, and is an abu se o f the c o nd e m natio n p ro c ess.

S o s e tt i n g asid e, vac ating, and annu lling a d ec laratio n o f tak ing fo r a v io latio n o f

OCGA § 22- 1

- 9 is an ap p ro p riate remed y und er OCGA § 32- 3- 1 1

. Cf

. G a

. 4 0 0 In du s

.

Pa rk v

. D ept. o

f Tra n s p. , 27 4 Ga. A p p

. 1 53, 1 5 8

- 1 5 9 ( 2 ) (6 1 6 SE2d 9 03) (2005)
(d ep artment’ s alleged v io latio ns o f the Unif o r m Relo c atio n A ssistanc e and Real

Pro p erty A c qu isitio n Po lic ies A c t, 42 USC § 46 0 1 et seq. , and the Geo r gia Relo c atio n

A ssistanc e and Land Ac qu isitio n Po lic y A c t, OCGA § 22- 4- 1 et seq. , d id no t p ro v id e

a basis f o r setting asid e a dec laratio n o f t a k ing u nd er OCGA § 32- 3- 1 1 bec au se the

A c ts merely ad d ress p o lic e s that sho u ld gu id e agenc ies w hen they ac qu ire land ).

The d ep artment f

urther argu es that the su p erio r c o u r t erred by d ismissing the

c o nd emnatio n p etitio n itself , sinc e OCGA § 32- 3- 1 1 only p ro v id es f o r s etting asid e,

v ac ating, o r annu lling the d ec laratio n o f t a k ing a nd transf er o f t itle. W e ho ld that the

d ep artment has no t sho w n harmf u l erro r.

8T h e c o nd emnatio n p etitio n alo ng with the d ec laratio n o f tak ing are the

d o c u ments the c o nd emno r m u st f ile in su p erio r c o u rt to initiate a p ro c eed ing in rem

to tak e p riv ate p ro perty f

o r p u blic ro ad p u rp o ses. OCGA §§ 32- 3- 4 (a), 32- 3- 5, 32- 3- 6

.

“ T he p etitio n [f

iled w ith the d ec laratio n of tak ing] is no t a mere p lead ing bu t an

instru ment w hic h p asses title w hen f iled a nd j u st and ad equ ate c o m p ensatio n is p aid

into c ou rt. ” D o rs e

y , 248 Ga. at 34.

So w hen the su p erio r c ou rt here set asid e , v a c ated , and a nnu lled the dec laratio n

o f t ak ing, it e f

f ec tiv ely inv a lid ated the d ep a r t ment’ s in rem pro c eed ing. The

d ep artment has no t sho w n (o r ev en a r gu ed ) ho w it w as harmed w hen the su p erio r

c o u rt also d ism i s s e d the ac c o mp anying p etitio n. “H arm a s w ell as erro r mu st be

sho w n t o au tho riz e a rev ersal by this c o u rt. ” C a rder v

. Ra ci

n e E n terpri

ses , 26 1 Ga. 1 42
(1 ) (401 SE2d 6 88) (1 9 9 1 ) (c itatio n and p unc t u atio n o mitted ).

W e o bserv e that the dep artm e n t a r g ues that the Su p reme Co u rt erred in

S u mmero u r by ho ld ing that OCGA § 22- 1

- 9 c reates mand ato r y, ju d ic ially enf o rc eable

requ irements. B u t as the d ep artment c o nc ed es, w e la c k a u t h o rity t o entertain this

argu ment.

4. OC GA § 22- 1- 9 (2)

9The d ep artment argu es that the su perio r c o u rt erred in f ind ing t hat it v io lated

OCGA § 22- 1

- 9 (2) o f

the A c t. That p aragrap h p r o v id es:

W here t he c o nd emning a u tho r ity seek s to o btain a f ee simp le interest in

r e al p ro p e rty, real pro p erty shall b e ap p raised bef o re t he initiat i o n o f

nego tiatio ns, a n d the o wn er o r h i s o r her des i

gn a t ed repres e n ta ti

v es s ha ll b e gi ven a n o ppo rtu n i ty to a cco mpa n

y t he a ppra i s er du ri n g hi s o r h er i n s pecti o n

o f t he p ro perty , e xc ep t that the c o nd em n ing a u tho rity may, by law , ru le,

regu latio n, or o rd inanc e, p resc r ibe a p ro c ed u re to w aiv e the ap praisal in

c ases inv o lv ing the ac qu isitio n b y sale o r d o natio n o f p ro p erty w ith a lo w f air mark et v a lu e[. ]

(Emp hasis su p p lied

. ) Star Land H old ings asserted , and the trial c o u r t fo u nd , that the

d e p a r tment d id no t giv e it an o p p o rtu nity t o ac co mp a ny the ap p raiser du ring h i s
insp ec tio n o f the p ro p erty. Ev id enc e su p p o rts the trial c ou rt’ s f ind ing.

On Febru ary 22, 2022, the ap p raiser s ent by c e rtif ied m a il a letter to Star Land

H o ld ings that stated :

A s yo u are a w a r e , t he Geo rgia D ep artment o f Transp ortatio n (“ G D OT” ) is p lanning c o nstru c tio n of the abo v e ref e r enc e d hi g h w ay
p ro j e c t and has re q u e s t e d an ap p raisal o f the real estate at the abo v e lo c atio n. T his letter has been s ent to yo u to 1 ) e xp lain the ap praisal

p ro c ess and o u r relatio nshi p w ith the GD OT, 2) enc o u rage yo u to
p ro v id e p ro p ert y i nf

o rmatio n that w ill aid in o u r ap praisal, and 3)

enc o u r age yo u to c o ntac t and meet w ith u s.

10. . .

Yo u are e nc o uraged to pro v id e any p e r t i n e n t inf o rmatio n relating to yo u r
p ro p erty, the area, a nd /o r the lo c al real estate mark et, e. g. , sale o r lease

c o ntrac t s, su rv e ys, bu ild ing p lans, lo c atio n o f sep tic lines, tank s, w ell(s)

etc

. , w hic h w ill help u s in c o mp leting the ap p raisal assi g n m en t

. I f yo u hav e any o f this inf

o rmatio n av ailable, please m ail it to the ad d ress abo v e and w e w ill c o py and retu rn all inf o rmatio n to yo u as so o n as p o ssible.

The next d ay, Febru ary 23, 2022, the ap p raiser insp ec t ed the p r o p erty

and lef t his b u s i ness c ard with a n u nid entif ied emp lo yee o f t he bu siness

o p erating at the p r o p erty.

The ap p raiser’ s Febru a ry 22 letter w a s no t d eliv ered to Star Land H o ld ings

u ntil Febru ary 24, the d ay af ter the a p p raiser had c o nd u cted the insp ec tio n. This w as

the only c o mmu nic a tio n betw e en t he ap p raiser and Star Land H o ld ing s b ef o re the

d ep artment initiated t he co nd emnatio n. Star Land H old ings’ p rinc ip al nev er saw the

bu siness c ard , nev er r ec eiv ed any message abo u t t h e ap p raiser’ s Febru ary 23, 2022
insp ec tio n o f the p ro p erty o r any o ther insp ec tio n, and o nly sp o k e w ith the ap p raiser

af ter the d ep artment had filed its p e titio n. N o thing in t he letter p ro v id e d f o r an
insp ec tio n o f t h e p r o p e rty at a f u tu re d ate o r inf

o rmed Star Land H old ings that it

11c o u ld seek a n insp ec tio n o f the p ro p erty w ith the ap p raiser. The letter d id no t inc lu d e

the w ord “ insp ec tio n” at all.

The ev id enc e su p po rts the su p e rio r c o u rt’ s f ind ings o f f

ac t as w ell as the

c o nc lu sio n that the d e p artment d id no t stric tly c o mp ly t o the e xtent p rac tic able w ith

O C G A § 22- 1

- 9 (2), w hic h r equ ires that “ the o w ner or his o r her d esignated

rep resentativ es

. . . be giv en an o p p o rtu nity to a cc o mp any the a p p raiser d u ring his o r
her insp ec tio n o f

the p r o p erty. ”

B e c au se w e ho ld that the su p erio r c o u r t d id no t err in f ind ing that the

d ep artment v io lated OCGA § 2 2- 1

- 9 (2), w hic h su p p o rts the co u rt’ s setting asid e,

v a c a t i n g , and annu lling t he d ec laratio n o f tak ing, w e d o no t reac h the dep a rtment’ s

argu ment that the c o u rt erred in f ind ing that it also v io lated OCGA § 22- 1

- 9 (3).

Ju dgmen t a

ffi rmed. Merci

er, C. J. , a n d Ri

ckma n , J. , c o n cu r

.

12