In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: September 12, 2016

S16A0682. CHATHAM COUNTY et al. v. MASSEY.

Benham, Justice.

Appellee Daniel W. Massey, who is currently serving his third 

consecutive term as Chatham County Superior Court Clerk, filed a writ of 

mandamus against Chatham County and its Board of Commissioners, and later 

amended the petition to add a claim for declaratory judgment. The petition

sought, among other things, an order declaring him to be entitled to cost-ofliving adjustments (“COLAs”) to his salary as provided by general statute

(“State COLAs”) as well as by special local legislation (“County COLAs”),

and to longevity increases as provided by statute. Massey asserted the County

deprived him of some of the compensation increases to which he was entitled 

over his years of service by setting off the COLAs the County claims it paid to 

him by improperly decreasing, in a corresponding sum, the amount the County

was paying to supplement his salary over the statutory minimum. In response, 
2

the County argued, among other things, that since it was paying Massey in 

excess of the statutory minimum, he was not entitled to County COLAs in 

addition to State COLAs and longevity increases. The County asserted in its 

counterclaim that Massey had, in fact, been overpaid. 

The parties agreed that the case involved no material issues of fact and 

that the sole issue in dispute was a matter of statutory interpretation regarding 

Massey’s entitlement to County COLAs. Accordingly, the parties agreed to 

submit the legal issues to the trial court upon the arguments made in their 

briefs. After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the trial court 

entered an order finding Massey was entitled not only to state-mandated 

longevity increases and State COLAs provided by general statute but also to 

County COLAs provided by local legislation. The County filed this appeal.1 

For the reasons set forth herein we affirm.

OCGA § 15-6-88 (a) sets the minimum salary of each clerk of the 

superior court according to the population of the county served. It appears to 

 

1

 The trial court also found Massey is entitled to an award of attorney fees, but the County does 

not challenge this portion of the order on appeal. Also, the County effectively abandoned its initial 

assertion that the trial court erred in granting a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, it appears this 

matter involves the appeal of a final order and no certificate of immediate review and application 

for interlocutory appeal was required as no issue remains to be determined on the initial mandamus 

petition. This Court’s jurisdiction arises from the County’s challenge to the constitutionality of the 

statute.
3

be undisputed that, given the population of Chatham County, the minimum 

statutory salary of the Chatham County Superior Court Clerk at the time 

Massey took office in 2005 was $84,458.82, and was increased to $91,682 after 

the 2010 decennial census. Subsection (b) of the statute provides, in pertinent 

part, that the amounts fixed as compensation by subsection (a) shall be 

increased in the same amount or percentage and at the same time that state 

employees in general receive a cost-of-living increase. Subsection (d) provides 

that the governing authority of a county may supplement the minimum salary 

of the clerk, but the supplement may not be decreased during any term of 

office. Prior to the date the increased statutory minimum salary became 

effective as a result of the 2010 census, the Board of Commissioners set 

Massey’s salary at $110,000 by a 2006 resolution, an amount exceeding the 

statutory minimum. Subsection (d) also ratified and confirmed any such prior 

expenditure of county funds to supplement the clerk’s salary. 

Meanwhile, in 2007, at the request of the Chatham County

representatives, the General Assembly passed a Local Act, 2007 HB 499,

relating to the salaries authorized for lower court judges and certain officers of 

Chatham County, including the clerk of the superior court. Ga. L. 2007, p. 

4351. Subsection (a) of the 2007 Local Act sets forth minimum salaries for 
4

certain County officers, including the clerk, and provides the clerk’s salary 

shall be fixed by the governing authority at an amount that “shall not be less 

than . . . $56,000.” Subsection (c) requires the County to grant each officer 

listed in subsection (a) a cost-of-living increase in the same percentage and at 

the same time that it grants a cost-of-living increase to county employees. 

We reject the County’s argument that the 2007 Local Act is 

unconstitutional, such that even subsection (c) of that Act is unenforceable, 

because subsection (a) authorizes the superior court clerk to be paid less than 

what is required by general statute, in OCGA § 15-6-88 (a). According to its 

plain language, the 2007 Local Act does not establish $56,000 as the salary for 

the clerk. It simply states that the clerk’s salary may not be less than $56,000. 

Consequently, it is not inconsistent on its face with the terms of the general 

statute requiring a clerk to be paid no less than the amount set by the county 

population schedule set forth in the statute, and is not unconstitutional. See 

Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. III, Sec. VI, Par. IV (a), generally prohibiting the 

enactment of local laws that conflict with laws of a general nature. Because 

Massey has always been paid a salary that exceeds the general statute minimum 

salary, the 2007 Local Act is also not unconstitutional as applied in this case.

This Court applies a presumption that a statute is constitutional unless shown 
5

otherwise. Judicial Council of Georgia v. Brown & Gallo, LLC, 288 Ga. 294, 

297 (702 SE2d 894) (2010). 

We also reject the County’s argument that the County COLAs authorized 

by subsection (c) do not apply to Massey because he was not paid pursuant to 

the terms of subsection (a) but by salary set by resolution of the Board of 

Commissioners. Nothing in subsection (c) of the 2007 Local Act states that 

the County COLAs required by that subsection apply only to salaries paid in 

accordance with the minimum set forth in subsection (a). The County has 

failed to show that the cost-of-living provision in the 2007 Local Act is 

unenforceable. 

We affirm the trial court’s order declaring that that the 2007 Local Act 

is constitutional as applied to Massey and that he is entitled to the same 

percentage increases in salary that the County has granted to other county 

employees as cost-of-living increases during his tenure in office. Applying the 

2007 Local Act and the applicable state statutes to Massey’s compensation, he 

is entitled to both State COLAs and County COLAs, and also to state longevity 

adjustments to his salary, without setting off these increases from the amount 

the County supplements his salary over the statutory minimum in violation of 
6

OCGA § 15-6-88 (d)’s prohibition of such a decrease during the clerk’s term 

of office,

2

as the County appears to have done in this case.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. 

 

2

 We note that the manual for calculating the salary of superior court clerks (and other county 

officers) published by the Association County Commissioners of Georgia, which was made a part 

of the lower court record in this case, reaches the same conclusion with respect to the application 

of the law to a salary such as the one paid to Massey.