GA Code § 22-2-102.2 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 22 - Eminent Domain|Chapter 2 - Condemnation Procedure Generally|Article 2 - Proceeding Before Special Master|§ 22-2-102.2. Contents of Petition

 The petition referred to in Code Section 22-2-102.1 shall set forth:    The facts showing the right to condemn;   The property or interest to be taken or damaged;   The names and residences of the persons whose property or interests are to be taken or otherwise affected, so far as known;   A description of any unknown persons or classes of unknown persons whose rights in the property or interest are to be affected;   A statement setting forth the necessity to condemn the private property and describing the public use for which the condemnor seeks the property; and   Such other facts as are necessary for a full understanding of the cause.     (Ga. L. 1957, p. 387, § 4; Code 1981, §22-2-102.2, enacted by Ga. L. 1983, p. 3, § 16.1; Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 10/HB 1313.)   Editor's notes.   - The provisions of this Code section were previously enacted in substantially similar form by Ga. L. 1957, p. 387, § 4. However, those provisions were not enacted as part of the original Code by the Code enactment Act (Ga. L. 1981, Ex. Sess., p. 8).   Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 1/HB 1313, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as 'The Landowner's Bill of Rights and Private Property Protection Act.'"   Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 25/HB 1313, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code section shall only apply to petitions for condemnation filed on or after April 4, 2006.   Law reviews.   - For article on 2006 amendment of this Code section, see 23 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 157 (2006). For survey article on real property law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 371 (2007). For survey article on zoning and land use law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 493 (2007).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Right to condemn.    - Condemnation petitions of a municipal airport commission that failed to show the consent of the city to such actions should have been dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Lopez-Aponte v. Columbus Airport Comm'n, 221 Ga. App. 840, 473 S.E.2d 196 (1996).    County was authorized to exercise the county's right of eminent domain in connection with the expansion of a detention center because the county had jurisdiction over the maintenance of jails in the county under O.C.G.A. § 36-9-5(a), and the operation of a jail constituted a public purpose pursuant to Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. V; the property owner did not identify any general law limiting the right of the county to exercise the county's power of eminent domain. Brunswick Landing, LLC v. Glynn County, 301 Ga. App. 288, 687 S.E.2d 271 (2009), cert. denied, No. S10C0558, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 246 (Ga. 2010).   Petition must sufficiently describe the property to be condemned.    - Condemnor did not identify the land with sufficient specificity to convey a "danger tree maintenance" easement where the condemnor described a "transmission line" easement, but did not describe the land it wished to condemn to maintain the transmission lines. Mosteller Mill, Ltd. v. Ga. Power Co., 271 Ga. App. 287, 609 S.E.2d 211 (2005).   Petition must plead public use.    - Given that a city's condemnation petition failed to plead a proposed taking for public use in compliance with O.C.G.A. § 22-2-102.2(1) and (5), a trial court did not err by dismissing the city's condemnation petition. City of Stockbridge v. Meeks, 283 Ga. App. 343, 641 S.E.2d 584 (2007).   Sufficient compliance with O.C.G.A.    § 22-1-6 shown. - Trial court did not err in denying the property owners' motion to dismiss the condemnation petition, nor in overruling the owners' exception to the special master's award, because the evidence at the special master hearing showed that the telecommunications condemnor made an effort to agree on a purchase price for the property, but that those negotiations ultimately failed, which was sufficient to show that the condemnor could not procure the property by contract within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 22-1-6. White v. Ringgold Tel. Co., 334 Ga. App. 325, 779 S.E.2d 378 (2015), cert. denied, No. S16C0404, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 148 (Ga. 2016).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   C.J.S.   - 29A C.J.S., Eminent Domain, § 250 et seq.