THI RD DI VI SI ON

M C FA DDEN, C. J.

, D OYLE, P. J.

, and HODGES, J.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly 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.

P le a s e r e fe r to the S upr e m e C our t of G e or gia Judic ia l

E m e r ge nc y Or de r o f M a r c h 1 4

, 2 0 2 0 for fur the r infor m a tion a t (https ://w w w

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

A pr i l 16, 2020



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 0 A0 73 1 . TORRES v

. CITY OF J ONESBORO.

A2 0 A0 73 2 . TORRES et al . v . CITY OF J ONESBORO.

M C F A D D E N , Ch i ef J u d g e.

Th e i s su e i n t h i s ap peal i s wh et h er t h e t ri al co u rt erred in h ol d i n g t h at t h e

ap p el l an t s fai l ed t o p r o v e t he am o u n t o f at t o rn ey fees t h ey i n cu rred i n d efen d i n g a

co n dem n at i o n act i o n. 1 W e h o l d t h at t h e ap p el l an t s ’ h ears ay ev i d en ce w as l eg al

,

ad m i s s i b l e ev id en ce o f t h e am o u n t o f at t o rn ey fees i ncu rred

, b ecau s e t h e ci t y o f

1 Becau s e t h ere were t wo co n d em n at i o n p et it i on s , t here were t wo cas es b el o w

an d t wo s et s o f b ri efs o n ap p eal

. Ap p el l an t s b eg i n t h ei r bri ef wi t h a No ti ce o f Rel at ed

Cas e, wh i ch ex p lai n s t hat t h e i r b ri efs wi l l b e i d en t i cal i n each act i on

. Th at was

ex t rem el y h el p fu l

. W e n o t e t h at o ur ru l es o ffer an al t ern at i v e ap p ro ach

. Ru l e 2 3 (a) p ro v i d es , “ If

t wo or m o re ap p eal s are co n s o l i d at ed

, a b ri ef i s s t i l l req u i red t o b e fi led i n each

ap p eal

. Part i es m ay a d o p t

, a nd are en co urag ed t o ad o p t

, al l o r a p o rt i o n o f an o t h er b ri ef in t h e s am e cas e o r fro m an o t h er cas e p en d in g in t h i s Co u rt

. Th e p art y ad o p t i n g l an g u ag e fro m an ot her bri ef s h al l s p eci fy p reci s el y w hat p o rt i o n o f t he o t h er b ri ef t h e

p art y i s ad o p t i n g an d l is t t h e cas e n um b er, i f d i fferen t .”J o n es b o ro d i d no t p ro p erl y o b ject to i t

. So t h e t ri a l c o urt erred i n ex cl u d i n g t h e

ev i d en ce, an d we vacat e th e t ri al co u rt ’ s ord er an d rem an d fo r fu rt h er p ro ceed i n g s n ot

i n co n s i s t en t wi t h t h i s o pi ni o n

.

1

. Fa ct s a n d b a ckg ro u nd

.

Th e rel ev an t fact s are l arg el y u n d i s p u t ed

. T h e ci t y o f J o n es b o ro fi l ed t wo

co n dem n at i o n p et i t i o n s ag ai n s t a p i ece o f p ro p ert y

. Th e a p p e l lan t s d efen d ed t h e

p ro ceed in g s , an d ev e n t u a l ly

, t h e ci t y o f Jo n es b o ro d is m i s s ed t h e co n dem n at i o n

p et i t i o n s

. Th e co n dem n ees m ov ed fo r at t o rn ey fees an d co s t s u n d er OCGA § 2 2 -1 -1 2

(2 ), wh ich p ro v id es :

In al l act i o ns wh ere a co n d em n i n g au th o ri t y ex erci s es t h e p o wer o f

em i n en t d o m ai n , t h e co u rt h av i n g j u ri sd i ct i o n o f a pro ceed i n g i ns t i t u ted

b y a co n d em

n or t o acq u i re real p ro p ert y b y c o nd em n at io n s h al l award

t h e o wn er o f an y ri g h t o r t i tl e to o r i n teres t i n s u ch real pro p ert y s u ch

s u m as wi ll i n t h e o p in i o n o f t h e co u rt rei m b u rs e s u ch o wn er fo r h i s o r

h e r r eas o n ab l e co st s an d ex p en s es , i n cl u di n g reas o n ab l e at t orn ey ,

ap p rai s al

, an d en gi neeri n g fees

, act u al l y i n cu rre d b e cau s e o f th e

co n d em n at io n pro ceed i n g s , i f

. . . [t ] h e p ro ceed i n g i s ab an d o ned b y th e

co n d em n i n g au t ho ri t y

.

W i th t h ei r m o t i o n s, t h e ap p el l an t s fi l ed t h e affi d av i t of t hei r at t o rn ey , t o wh i ch was

at t ach ed at t o rn ey b i l l i ng reco rd s , co u rt r e p o r t er b i ll s , an d b i l l s o f an ap prai s er. Th e

2ap p el l an t s al s o fi l ed affida vit s fro m o t h er p ro fes s i o n al s av o wi n g th at t h e at t orn ey fees

an d ap p rai s al fees were reas o n ab l e.

Th e t ri al co u rt co n d u ct ed a h eari n g at wh i ch t h e ap p el l an t s p res en t ed t h e

t es t i m o ny o f a n a t t o r n e y wh o m t h e t ri al co urt accep t ed as an ex p ert i n em i n en t

d o m ai n rep res en t at io n an d t h e fees as s o ci at ed w i t h em i n en t d o m ai n rep res en t at i o n.

Th e ex pert t es t i fi ed t h a t h e h ad rev iewed t h e at to rn ey ’ s i t em i zed fee st at em en t s

at t ach ed to t h e m o t i on s fo r at t o rn ey fees

, an d t h e ap p el l an t s ’ at t o rn ey q u es t i o n ed h i m

a b o u t t h o s e b i l l s

. Th e ex p ert t es t i fi ed t h at t h e i tem ized b i ll s refl ect ed $ 3 5 ,8 8 1 i n

at t o rn ey fees an d t hat t h e at t o rn ey s’ an d p aral eg al s’ rat es were reas o n ab l e. T h e ex p ert

t es t i fi ed t h at t h e ap p rai s er’ s i nv o i ces s h o wed t h at her fees w ere $1 3 ,7 0 0, w hi ch was

reas on ab l e. Th e ex p ert t es t i fi ed t h at h e rev i ewed t h e o t h er co s t s o f t h e cas e, an d t h at

t h e co u rt rep o rt er fees an d m i leag e co s t s were reas o n ab l e. Fi n al l y , h e t es ti fi ed t h at t h e

at t o rn ey fees , ap p rai s al fees , an d co s t s t o t al ed $ 5 1,2 0 6 .1 5

, wh i ch was reas on ab l e.

Th e ci ty o f J on es bo ro ’ s at t o rn ey cro s s -ex am i n ed th e ex pert

, wh o c o n f i rm ed

t h at h e had rev i ewed th e b il l i n g s t at em en t s

. Th e ci t y ’ s at to rn ey q ues t i o n ed t h e ex p ert

ab o ut s p eci fi c en t ri es o n t h os e st at em en t s , an d t h e ex p ert co n fi rm ed t h at t h e am o u n t s

ch arg ed w ere reas o n ab l e.

3Aft e r t h e ci t y co n cl u d ed i ts cro s s-ex am in at i o n o f t h e ex p ert wi t n es s , t h e

at t o rn ey fo r th e ap p el l an t s as k ed q ues t i o n s on re-d i rect an d th en s t at ed t hat h e h ad n o

ad d it i o n al wi t n es s es

. Th e ci t y t h en m o v ed to s t ri k e t h e ex p ert ’ s t es ti m o n y o n t h e

g ro u nd t h at it was b as ed o n t h e b i l l i n g reco rd s , wh i ch were h ears ay

. Th e tri al co u rt

ag reed an d d en i ed t h e m o ti o n fo r at t o rn ey fees o n t h e b as i s t h at ab sen t t he ex p ert ’ s

t es t i m o ny , t h ere was n o ev i d en ce as t o t h e am o u nt o f fees

. Th e ap p el l an t s t h en fi l ed

t h i s ap p eal

.

2

. An a l ys i s

.

Th e ap p el l an t s arg u e t h at t h e ci t y wai v ed i t s h ears ay

o b ject i o n . W e ag ree.

“ [U] n d er t h e n ew Ru l es o f E v i d e n c e , ‘ i f a p art y do es n ot p ro p erl y o b ject to

h ears ay , t h e o b

ject i o n s h al l be d eem ed wai v ed

, an d t h e h ears ay ev i d en ce s h al l b e

l eg al ev i d en ce an d ad m is s i b l e.’ OCGA § 24 -8 -8 0 2 .” Pa t t er s on v. Kevo n

, LLC

, 3 0 4

Ga. 2 3 2

, 2 3 4 n .3 (8 1 8 SE2 d 5 7 5 ) (2 0 1 8 ). A co nt em p o ran eo u s o b

ject i on i s req u i red

.

Id

. T h e co n t em

p oran eo u s o b

j ect i o n ru l e pro v i d es t h at “ co u n s el m u s t t ak e ex cep t i o n

t o t h e al l eg ed erro r a t t h e ea r l i es t p o s s i b l e op p o r t u n i t y in t he p ro g res s o f t h e cas e by

a p ro p er o bject i o n m ad e a p art o f t h e reco rd .” Sh a r p e v. Dep t. o

f Tr a n sp ., 2 6 7 Ga.

2 6 7 , 2 6 7 (1 ) (4 7 6 SE2 d 7 22 ) (1 9 9 6 ) (ci t at i o n o m it t ed ; em ph as i s s u p p l i ed ).

4Th e ci t y d i d n ot o b ject at al l t o t h e ex p ert ’ s h ears ay t es t i m o n y , m u ch l es s “ at

t h e earl i es t p o s s i b l e o pp o rt u n i t y .” S h a r p e , s up ra. Becau s e t he ci t y “ d i d n ot rai s e a

co n tem p o ran eo u s o b

ject i o n , [i t ] fo rfei ted i t s ri g h t to i n s is t t hat t h e t es t i m o n [y ] s h o u ld

b e ex cl u ded fro m

t he ev id en ce.” Id . at 2 7 0 (1 ) (ci t at i on an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

Th e ci t y ’ s m o t i o n t o s t ri k e t he ex p ert tes t i m on y aft er t h e ap p el l an t s h ad res t ed

was n o t a p ro p er o b

ject io n t o t he h ears ay

. A n o n-co n t em p oran eo u s m o ti o n t o s t ri k e

i s n o t “ a p ro ced u ral t o o l to o bject t o ev i d en ce, ex cep t i n t h o s e l i m i t ed i n st an ces wh ere

t h e ev i d e n c e was i nad m i s s i b l e b ecau s e it was ob t ai n ed in v io l at i o n o f a cri m i n al

d efen d an t ’ s co n s t it u t i o n al ri g h t s [.] ” S h a r pe , 2 6 7 Ga. at 2 7 1 (2 ).

In s u m , b ecau s e th e ci ty d i d n o t co n tem po ran eo us l y o bject t o t h e ex p ert ’ s

t es t i m o ny t h at t h e co n d em n ees i n cu rred $ 5 1 ,2 0 6 .1 5 i n fees an d co s t s , t h e t ri al co u rt

erred i n ex cl u d i n g t h e t es t i m o ny o n t h e b as i s t h at i t was h e a r s a y a n d in co n cl u d i n g

t h at t h e co n d em

n ees p res en t ed n o ev i d en ce o f t h e am o u n t o f fees an d co s ts in cu rred

.

So w e v acat e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s j u d gm en t an d rem an d t hes e cas es fo r f u rt h er

p ro ceed in g s n ot i n co n s i st en t wi t h t h i s o p i n i o n

.

Ju d g men t va ca t ed an d ca s es r ema nd ed

. Do yl e, P. J., a n d Ho d

g es

, J., co n cu r

.

5