Case Name: GEORGIA POWER COMPANY v. BRAY et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1974-05-28
Citations: 232 Ga. 558
Docket Number: 28765
Parties: GEORGIA POWER COMPANY v. BRAY et al.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Ingram, J., who concurs specially and Nichols, P. J., who dissents. Hall, J., disqualified.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 232
Pages: 558–565

Head Matter:
28765.
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY v. BRAY et al.

Opinion:
Gunter, Justice.
This case is here by virtue of our granting an application for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. We granted the writ because this is apparently a case of first impression and a case of importance in the area of eminent domain law.
Georgia Power Company, condemnor and applicant in certiorari here, condemned an easement in a special master proceeding over a tract of land owned jointly by tenants in common, Mr. Moseley and Mr. Bray who are respondents in certiorari here. Contiguous to the jointly owned tract of land over which the easement was condemned was another tract of land of approximately five acres owned individually by Mr. Bray. Pursuant to a hearing on the issue of the value of the property taken and damaged, an award and judgment were entered. The condemnor and the condemnees then both appealed to a jury in the superior court. After a jury trial an award in favor of the condemnees was entered, the condemnor, being dissatisfied with the award found by the jury, filed a motion for a new trial, the motion for new trial was overruled by the trial judge, an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See Ga. Power Co. v. Bray, 130 Ga. App. 618 (204 SE2d 351) (1974).
The Georgia Constitution (Code Ann. § 2-301) provides that private property shall not be taken, or damaged, for public purposes, without just and adequate compensation being first paid.
The special master statute (Code Ann. § 36-612a) provides that the award made by the special master shall, in part, be as follows:
"1. I find an award to-, condemnee, the sum of $-, as the actual market value of the property sought to be condemned;
"2. I find consequential damages to the remaining property in the amount of $-;
"3. I find consequential benefits to the remaining property in the amount of $-(never to exceed the amount of the consequential damages);
"4. Balancing the consequential benefits against the consequential damages, I find and award to the condemnee in this case in the total sum of $-, and I respectfully recommend to the court that said property be condemned by a judgment in rem to the use of the condemnor upon the payment of the last stated sum into the registry of the court, subject to the demands of the condemnee."
In the case of Alabama Power Co. v. Chandler, 217 Ga. 550 (1) (123 SE2d 767) (1962), this court said: "In a proceeding to condemn only a portion of a tract of land the only question to be determined by the jury is the amount which the condemnor should pay as just and adequate compensation for the part taken and consequential damages, if any, to the remaining portion of the tract, as such damages may be offset, but not exceeded, by consequential benefits." (Emphasis supplied.)
The condemnor's first complaint in this case is that in the jury trial the trial judge permitted evidence to go to the jury, over objection, showing consequential damages to a contiguous tract of land of approximately five acres owned in fee by Mr. Bray alone. The condemned easement was over the joint-ownership tract of land, and the condemnor contends that consequential damages in an eminent domain case must be limited to the land remaining in the tract after the taking. In other words, consequential damages cannot be awarded in an eminent domain case to contiguous tracts of land which have different ownership from the tract in which the taking occurs.
We agree with the contention of the condemnor. Consequential damages to a contiguous tract of land having a different ownership from that in which the taking occurs may be real and may in fact exist, but a separate owner's claim for consequential damages to his land contiguous to the tract where the taking occurs cannot be asserted in a condemnation action. Consequential damages to "the remainder of the tract in which the taking occurs" are the only consequential damages that may be recovered in the condemnation action.
In the case of Gaines v. City of Calhoun, 42 Ga. App. 89 (155 SE. 214) (1930), Judge Stephens quoted from a foreign decision at p. 95, as follows: "It is an established rule in law, in proceedings for condemnation of land, that the just compensation which the landowner is entitled to receive for his lands and damages thereto must be limited to the tract a portion of which is actually taken. The propriety of this rule is quite apparent. It is solely by virtue of his ownership of the tract invaded that the owner is entitled to incidental damages. His ownership of other lands is without legal significance."
We, therefore, hold that the admission of evidence of consequential damages to the contiguous 5-acre tract of land owned by Mr. Bray individually was erroneous. If the 5-acre tract has suffered damages by virtue of the taking which occurred on the joint-ownership tract, then such damages must be asserted in a separate action against the condemnor. See Richmond County v. Williams, 109 Ga. App. 670 (137 SE2d 343) (1964).
The condemnor's second complaint here is that the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence photographs depicting transmission line structures and wires located on easements of the Georgia Power Company in other areas of the state. The condemnee's purpose in offering such photographs in evidence was to support their claim that consequential damages would accrue to their remaining property not taken if and when such structures and lines were erected on the easement taken.
The condemned easement carried with it the continuous right of the condemnor "from time to time to go in and upon said right-of-way and to construct, erect, install, operate, maintain, inspect, reconstruct, repair, rebuild, renew and replace thereon towers, frames, and poles, with the right to attach to said towers, frames and poles necessary wires, fixtures and appliances, including communication lines and overhead and underground protective wires, for the proper transmission of electricity; also the right to substitute frames for towers or poles, or towers for frames or poles, with the right to brace the towers, frames and poles with such anchors, guy wires and supports as may be necessary to hold said towers, frames and poles firmly in position."
Since the condemned easement carried with it the right to erect towers, frames, and poles thereon at any time, and since the offered evidence depicted towers, frames and poles utilized by the condemnor elsewhere, the admission of these exhibits into evidence was not erroneous. This contention by the condemnor is without merit.
However, because of the admission of evidence with respect to consequential damages to the contiguous tract of land owned individually by Mr. Bray, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was erroneous and must be reversed.
Argued May 13, 1974
Decided May 28, 1974
Rehearing denied July 23, 1974.
Jones, Cork, Miller & Benton, Wallace Miller, Jr., for appellant.
Charles T. Ballard, for appellees.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur, except Ingram, J., who concurs specially and Nichols, P. J., who dissents. Hall, J., disqualified.