Court Opinion

ID: 9845711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:26:47.635665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:19.910564
License: Public Domain

Carley, Chief Judge,
concurring specially.
I do not dissent to the majority’s affirmance of the judgment in this case. I am, however, compelled to write separately. As the facts set forth in the majority opinion suggest, there is some confusion as to whether the instant condemnation case is one wherein it was the special master method or the declaration of taking method that was employed. I believe that it is necessary to explain why this confusion exists in the instant case so as to decrease the likelihood of its reoccurrence in future condemnation cases.
“Proceedings instituted pursuant to OCGA § 22-2-100 et seq. [, the special master method,] and those instituted pursuant to OCGA § 32-3-1 et seq. [, the declaration of taking method,] are each separate and distinct special statutory proceedings and, as such, are subject to their own unique special statutory procedural provisions. [Cits.]” (Emphasis supplied.) Stephens v. Dept. of Transp., 170 Ga. App. 784, 788 (1) (318 SE2d 167) (1984). The confusion that exists as to which of these two “separate and distinct” methods was employed in the instant case results from the fact that appellee-Condemnor, for some inexplicable reason, simultaneously invoked both methods as against appellant-Condemnee’s property. Condemnor not only filed a petition requesting the appointment of a special master, but also filed a declaration of taking which was accompanied by the payment into *78court of estimated just and adequate compensation. The special master method makes no provision for a condemnor to file a declaration of taking accompanied by the payment into court of estimated just and adequate compensation, and the declaration of taking method makes no provision for a condemnor to request the appointment of a special master. See Stephens v. Dept. of Transp. supra at 785 (1). The record in the instant case further reflects that, after Condemnor’s simultaneous invocation of the two entirely “separate and distinct” methods of condemnation, the two entirely “separate and distinct” condemnation procedures were erroneously intermingled throughout the pendency of the proceedings. The trial court, Condemnor and Condemnee would, on occasion, invoke those “unique special statutory procedural provisions” applicable only to the special master method and would, on other occasions, invoke those “unique special statutory procedural provisions” applicable only to the declaration of taking method. Such a “hybrid” procedure is not only totally unauthorized in the trial court, but it also leaves an appellate court in a quandary as to how to analyze and to dispose of the appeal of a case wherein it has been followed.
For example, the proper disposition of the instant case is dependent upon whether it is analyzed from the perspective of the “special statutory procedural provisions” applicable to the special master method or from the perspective of those applicable to the declaration of taking method. If Condemnor’s petition requesting the appointment of a special master is ignored and this case is treated as one wherein the declaration of taking method was employed, then a summary affirmance without addressing the merits would be the proper disposition. Under that analysis, Condemnee’s enumeration of an evidentiary ruling occurring at trial would be clearly harmless since the record shows that no trial should have ever been held because Condemnee failed to file a timely notice of appeal within 30 days after the date of service. See OCGA § 32-3-14; Department of Transp. v. Rudeseal, 156 Ga. App. 712 (276 SE2d 52) (1980). It is only because Condemnee did file a timely notice of appeal from the award of the special master that his right to trial was arguably preserved. See OCGA § 22-2-112. Accordingly, we are authorized to reach the merits of the instant case only by ignoring the Condemnor’s declaration of taking and by treating this as a condemnation case wherein the special master method was employed.
I can ultimately agree to ignore the declaration of taking rather than the special master petition only because a disposition of the instant case by summary affirmance rather than on the merits would, in effect, punish Condemnee for Condemnor’s multifarious pleading. Accordingly, although I can agree with the majority that Condemnor should prevail on the merits, it is my hope that the unauthorized in*79vocation in the instant case of two “separate and distinct” methods of condemnation will not be repeated in the future.
Decided September 26, 1990.
Thompson, Fox & Chandler, Robert B. Thompson, for appellant.
Hulsey, Oliver & Mahar, Joseph D. Cooley III, for appellee.