1 Finding that the 30 additional residents were not properly named as parties t o the manda

mus ac tion, the t

rial cour t deem ed Hanse n to be the so le plaintif f in the case. Accordingly, the appealhas been pur sued by Hansen onl

y. H ansen dire cted his appeal to the Cour

t of Appeals, which pro perly

transfer red the ca se to this Co urt. See Ga. Const. of 1 983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (5 ); OCGA § 9-6-28 (a). FINAL C OPY 295 Ga. 385

S14A0187. HANSEN v. DEKAL B COUNTY BO ARD OF TAX

ASSESSORS et al. HUNSTEIN, Justice. Bymea ns of an a ction

seekin g manda

mus an dother relief, James Hansen and 30 other D eKalb County r esident s (here inaft e r, “Plaintiffs”) sought to obtain certa

in inform ation fro m

the DeKalb County Bo ard of Tax Assessors in

connec tion

with their

201 2 property tax assessments. The trial cou rt denied Plainti ffs’ request f

or a mandam

us nisi, prompting this appeal. 1 We find no

error and aff

irm. As alle ged in the

compl aint, in Januar

y 2013, H ansen a

nd the ot he r taxpay ers filed with th e Board so-called Reque sts for Info rmation, each seekin g informa tion regarding th e appraisal and ass essme nt of his or h er prope rty for the 2012 tax ye ar. Spe cific ally, the request s sought the identification of all2

documents reviewed in ma king initial and revised assessm ents of each property, all properties used as “qualified com parable properties” in suc h assessments, a ll apprais ers who made such asse ssments and their qua lifica tions, a nd all fa ctors used in dete rmining

the ass essed va

lues of the properti es. Th e reque sts also sought a description of the “geog raphic area . . . within which comparable properties may

be sele cted”

and theidentif

icati on of “al l bank sales, oth er financial instituti on owned sa les, or d istr essed sales” wi thin such geographic

area. In addition , t he reque sts asked that the Boar d confirm “th e fair market value assess ment . . . tha t will be pursued ” fo r tax ye ar 2012 a nd identi fy the documents and o ther infor mation used to d etermine such value. The request s wereostensib ly made pursuan t to OCG A § 48-5-306 ( d), which provides in pertinent part:

T he taxpay er ma

y reque st, and the coun ty board of t a x assess ors shall provide wi thin ten bu siness days, cop ies of such public records and information, inc luding, but not limite d to, al l do cuments review ed in m aking the assess ment, the add

ress an d parcel identif

icati on number of all real

propertyutilized as quali fied comparableproperti es, a

nd all fa ctors c onsidere d in esta blishing th e new a ssessm ent, a

t a unifor m copying feenot to exc eed 25¢ pe r page[.]2 This provision authorizes taxpayers to record, at their own expen se, “any

interview with any

officer or em ployee of the taxi

ng authority

relating to the valuatio n of the tax payer’s property.”

3 OCGA § 50-18-71 e t seq. is t he Georg ia Open R

ecords A ct. 3 Id. at (d) (1) . The B oard responded to these requ ests with certain “sales ratio reports,” which identif

y sales of real property

within a given a rea. Finding the responses to be insu fficie ntly spe cific , Plain tiffs re que sted further, mo re specific responses , t o which the Board responded with m ore documents. Ac cording to Hansen , these addition al documents did not prov ide t he prec ise infor mati on Plainti ffs sought. Pl aintiff s then sent a letter requesting a mee ting with Calvin Hicks, the Board’s Secreta ry and Chief Ap prais er, to review the req uests for informa tion and the documents the Boar d had pro vided in resp onse. Such

mee ting, the le tter sta

ted, w as to berecorde d, pursua nt to OCG

A § 48 -5 -311 (h). 2 Hicks declined th is request. There after, Hansen filed hi s complaint, styled as a “Petiti on for Mandam us and/or For an O rder and Judgm ent unde r OCGA § 50-18-71 e t seq. 3 ” In the petitio n, Hansen sought an order directing the B oard (1) “to directly, fully, and truthfully respond to each item /reques t conta ined in e ach Re quest for Informa tion” within five business day s; and (2) “to me et with Plainti ffs . . . for4

the purpose of discussing [the Board’s ] answ ers . . . and e xplaining to Plaint iff’s [sic] [the] releva

nce, i f any, [of

such] docume

ntation. ” Furthe r, Hans en sought to have the requested meeting “recorded by Plaintiffs , as provided by OCGA § 48-5-31 1 (h).” Hansen also sough t penalties und er the Open Recor ds Act a nd attorney fees. After the pet

ition wa s filed a

nd serve d, the trial court de nied the manda mus nisi, finding that

Hanse n’s claims were not c ognizab le under the Open Recor

ds Act or in ma ndamus . We agree w ith the trial cou rt’s analysis. 1. The Open Records Act do es not apply to informat io n sough t under OCG A § 4 8-5-306 (d). This co nclusion i s readi ly appa rent from

the introduct ory

clause of OCGA § 48-5-306 (d), which sta tes that the rights afforded thereu

nder are “[n]otw ithstand

ing the provisions of

Code Se ction 50- 18-71.” In enac ting OCGA § 48-5-306 (d) , the legisla ture clearly intended th at countytax assessment records be handled differently than other forms of public records and thus c arved t hem out of the Op en Rec ord s Act fo r specific treatment. See Couch v. Red Roof Inns, Inc. , 291 Ga . 359, 364 (1) (729 SE2 d 378) (2012) (con s truing “notwithstanding” clause as indic ative of “intent to displace” other law). The Open Reco rds Act is equally c lear that its5

enforcement

provisions a

pply only to reco rds reque sts ma de in compliance with the A ct’s own specif

ic requ irem ents. S ee OC GA § 50-18- 71 (b) (3) (“[ t]he [Act’s] enforcement provisions . . . shall be availa ble onlyto enforce compliance and punish nonc omplia

nce whe n a writ ten req uest is made consistent with this subsect ion ” (emph asis suppl ied)). Given t hat Pla intiffs’ requests for informa tion were m ade pursuant t o OCGA§ 48-5-306 (d) and not OCGA § 50- 18-71 (b) (3), th e Open Records Act is n ot available to enf orce compliance with such req uests. 2. Mandamus is an extraordina ry rem edy

availa ble only wherea litig ant seeks to compel a public offic ial to perfor m an act or fulfill a

duty that is required bylaw. See OC GA § 9-6-20 . A pre requisit e to one ’s entitlement to a writ of man damus is a “cle ar lega l right”to the re lie f being sou ght. Bibb County v. Monroe Co unty , 294 Ga . 730, 734 ( 2) (755 SE2d 7 60) (2014); Humphrey v. Owe ns , 289 Ga . 721, 722 ( 715 SE2d 119) ( 2011). Whe ther a litigan thas a cle ar lega

l right to t he reli ef sought d epends on the la w governing the subject matter at iss ue. Bibb County , 294 Ga. at 735- 736. Here, the particular law Hans en seeks to enfo rce, OCGA § 48-5-306 (d), requires a count

y board of tax assesso rs to furn ish copies of specified docume nts4 Contrary to Hansen ’s contention, OC GA § 48-5 -311 (h) does not est ablish a clear legal right in a taxpayer to dema n d a recor de d meeting with Board representatives at his pleasure. 6 and other informa

tion to a request

ing taxpa yer wi thin ten b usiness days of the request. It is undis puted that th e Board h as provided various documents in response to Plaintiffs ’ information requests. In his mandamus peti tion, Hansen seeks sup plemen tation and an ex planation o f these respon ses in a recorded

mee ting session. These dem ands stray far beyond wha t the statute req uires. 4 The trial c ou rt thus pro perly held that Han sen’s request for mandamus was unsupp ortable as a matter of law. Furthermore, Hansen ’s fail ure to avail h ims elf of the a dminist rative appeals process as set

forth in OCGA § 48-5-311 prior to resorting to the courts for relief is in

itself a sufficient gr ound for denying the mandamus n isi. See We, the Taxpa yers v. Bd. of Tax Assessors of Effingham County , 292 Ga. 31, 33 (1) (734 SE2d 373) (2012) (“failure to pursue the admin istrative remedy [in OC GA § 48-5-311] p reclude s the iss uanceof a writ of m andam

us”); see a lso Chatham County Bd. of Asses sors v. Je pson , 261 Ga. App. 771 (1 ) (584 SE2d 22 ) (2003) (holdingthat e ven proce dural iss ues reg arding suf ficie ncy of t

he notic e of

reasse ssmen

tmust be

adjudic ated first t hrough the administrative appe als7

process in OCGA

§ 48-5-311). 3. We rejec t Hansen’s contention tha t the tri al cour

t erre d by denying the request for a ma ndamus nisi wit

hout first holding a h earing, as our m andam us statute clearly authorizes th e trial co u rt to do just that where the petiti on is meri tless

. See O CGA § 9-6-27 (a) (provi ding for hearing onl y “if the manda mus nisi is granted” (em

phasis supplied)); K a ppelm eier v. Iannaz zone , 279 Ga. 131 (610 SE2d 60) (2005) (a ffirming denia l of ma ndamus nisi). 4. Given the a b ove, Hansen’s contention that t he trial court erred in holding that the additio nal 30 taxpa yers w ere not proper

ly nam ed as pl aintiff

s is moot. Judgme nt affir

med. All the

Justice s concur .

Decid ed June 3 0, 2014. Mandamus. DeKalb Sup erior Court . Before Judge Fl ake. Walter H. Hotz , for appellant. Sam L. Bra

nnen, Jr., Lisa E. Chang, Duane D. Pritc hett , for app ellee s.