Brunswick Landing, LLC v. Glynn County

Decision Date23 November 2009
Docket NumberNo. A09A1157.,A09A1157.
Citation687 S.E.2d 271,301 Ga. App. 288
PartiesBRUNSWICK LANDING, LLC v. GLYNN COUNTY.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Catts & Brooks, Austin E. Catts, Todd C. Brooks, Brunswick, for appellant.

Brown, Readdick, Bumgartner, Carter, Strickland & Watkins, Bradley J. Watkins, Aaron W. Mumford, Brunswick, for appellee.

ADAMS, Judge.

Brunswick Landing, LLC, (the "Landing") appeals the trial court's order authorizing Glynn County (the "County") to condemn certain of the Landing's property located within the City of Brunswick (the "City") for the purpose of expanding the Glynn County Detention Center.1 Finding no error, we affirm.

The Glynn County Detention Center is located within the city limits of Brunswick. The County has maintained a detention facility at this location for approximately 75 years, and the current facility became operational in 1989. Since that time, the number of inmates at the Detention Center has greatly increased. The County has taken several approaches to accommodate the increasing number of inmates,2 but despite these efforts, the Detention Center continues to face a serious overcrowding problem. In 2005, Glynn County paid a consulting firm, Carter, Gobel, Lee ("CGL"), $150,000 to perform an assessment of the county's criminal justice system, including the Detention Center. CGL originally recommended building a separate annex a few miles away from the existing Detention Center, but it was later determined that construction on that site was not feasible3 and that plan was never implemented. Glynn County chose instead to expand the existing Detention Center. This expansion required condemning two parcels of private property owned by the Landing, 1914 Newcastle Street and 406 "J" Street, located adjacent to the Detention Center.

On May 29, 2008, Glynn County filed its Petition to condemn the parcels before the special master. After pre-trial motions, on September 10, 2008, the special master entered his award, which denied the Landing's legal challenges to the condemnation. The Landing subsequently filed "Errors, Objections, and Exceptions to Special Master Award" seeking to reverse the award and to dismiss and deny the condemnation action. On October 30, 2008, the Superior Court of Glynn County entered judgment upholding the special master's award and condemning the property in question.

On appeal, the Landing contends the superior court erred in failing to dismiss the condemnation action because: (a) Glynn County did not prove "[t]he facts showing the right to condemn" as required by OCGA 22-2-102.2(1); (b) Glynn County improperly used SPLOST funding; and, (c) the Operative Resolutions authorizing the condemnation were invalid. The Landing also asserts a violation of equal protection in that Georgia law allows a finding of "misuse of discretion" to set aside Title 32 condemnations, OCGA § 32-3-1 et seq., but requires the higher threshold of "bad discretion" to set aside Title 22 condemnations, OCGA § 22-2-101 et seq.

1. The Landing first argues that the trial court erred in not dismissing the condemnation action pursuant to OCGA § 22-2-102.2(1), which mandates that the condemnor prove the facts showing the right to condemn. The Landing concedes that a county is generally vested with the power of eminent domain and that the power of eminent domain for an expansion of a detention center would ordinarily be a valid "public purpose," but it argues that the County is not authorized to condemn the property at issue here because it is located within the City of Brunswick, a separate municipality and the County has failed to show that the City has consented to the condemnation.

(a) The burden to show that a condemnation is for an authorized public purpose lies with the condemnor. City of Stockbridge v. Meeks, 283 Ga.App. 343, 345(3), 641 S.E.2d 584 (2007). And "where the condemning authority seeks to exercise the power of eminent domain within the territorial limits of another governing body, an additional restriction has been held to apply." Dougherty County v. Burt, 168 Ga.App. 166, 169(3), 308 S.E.2d 395 (1983). "The extra-territorial exercise of the right of eminent domain as an `implied' power is authorized only if it is `reasonably necessary' to a condemnor's successful completion of an undertaking initiated pursuant to its express grant of authority over a subject matter within its jurisdiction." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id.

In its petition to condemn before the special master, Glynn County states that as a county in the State of Georgia, it is granted the power of eminent domain pursuant to OCGA § 22-2-100(2). But "[t]he right of a county or municipality to exercise the power of eminent domain arises from their constitutional authority to do so, not from [a statute]." Lopez-Aponte v. Columbus Airport Com'n, 221 Ga.App. 840, 843(1)(b), 473 S.E.2d 196 (1996). Unlike "other entities," counties do not need any enabling legislation granting them the power of eminent domain. Id. The Georgia Constitution grants the County a right to condemn property for "any public purpose," subject to any limitations on that power provided by general law. See Ga. Const. Art. IX, Sec. II, Par. V;4 Lopez-Aponte, 221 Ga.App. at 843(1)(b), 473 S.E.2d 196. Under OCGA § 36-9-5(a),5 Glynn County has jurisdiction over the maintenance of jails in the county. It is undisputed that the operation of a jail constitutes a public purpose. See generally Jackson v. Gasses, 230 Ga. 712, 713, 198 S.E.2d 657 (1973); Kellett v. Fulton County, 215 Ga. 551, 555(3), 111 S.E.2d 364 (1959); Shepherd v. State, 16 Ga.App. 248, 85 S.E. 83 (1915). See also Dougherty County v. Burt, 168 Ga.App. at 169(3), 308 S.E.2d 395 (In absence of bad faith or fraud, validity of public purpose normally not open to question so long as property available for public use as a matter of right). And the Landing has not identified any general law limiting the right of the County to exercise its power of eminent domain in this context. Thus, we find that Glynn County is authorized to exercise its right of eminent domain in connection with the expansion of the detention center.

(b) But because the County seeks to condemn property within the City of Brunswick, a separate, legal municipality, the County must also meet the "additional restriction" of demonstrating that the condemnation is reasonably necessary for the successful completion of the public purpose of expanding the detention center, which was initiated pursuant to Glynn County's express grant of authority under OCGA § 36-9-5(a).

There is no express limitation to the County's authority over jails requiring city approval prior to operate a jail within city limits.6 Compare Lopez-Aponte, 221 Ga. App. at 843, 473 S.E.2d 196 (condemnation under Title 6 denied because airport commission failed to show city's consent as explicitly required under OCGA § 6-3-22); Dougherty County v. Burt, 168 Ga.App. at 166, 308 S.E.2d 395 (condemnation for library denied in absence of proper agreement with city where such agreement required under Ga. Const. Art. IX, sec. II, 2, par. III); OCGA § 36-82-62(a)(1) (requiring city approval for condemnations pursuant to Revenue Bond Law). The authority granted under OCGA § 36-9-5(a) is given exclusively to the County; it is not shared with the city. Moreover, it is undisputed that the County owns and maintains the current facility located within the City, and the Landing does not dispute the County's authority to maintain that facility. Further, it is apparent that the County is hampered in its ability to maintain a workable jail under the current conditions and that extra space is reasonably necessary to meet the current needs of the prison population. It is undisputed that the Detention Center was facing a serious overcrowding problem, and the importance of maintaining a workable and secure jail facility is self-evident. Although Glynn County initially considered building a separate facility to resolve the problem, other issues came up preventing this solution. Moreover, concerns regarding security, costs and duplication of effort were also cited in support of expanding the current facility, rather than purchase a new site. Therefore, the trial court was authorized to find that the decision to expand the existing Detention Center was reasonably necessary. Counties are given broad discretion in the placement of jails, and courts should defer to those who are best situated to make such decisions. See Jackson v. Gasses, 230 Ga. at 713, 198 S.E.2d 657 ("We have found no law or decision of this court and none has been called to our attention, which restricts the ... County in determining where [a] jail should be located."). Strong evidence is presented that the expansion posed a viable and logical solution.7 As such, we conclude the condemnation of the Landing's property was "reasonably necessary" to maintain the jail system within the county, and therefore, such extraterritorial condemnation by Glynn County is authorized. Cf. Kelley v. City of Griffin, 257 Ga. 407, 408(1), 359 S.E.2d 644 (1987) (affirming city's power for extraterritorial condemnation to maintain sewer lines); Langley v. City Council of Augusta, 118 Ga. 590, 45 S.E. 486 (1903); Norton Realty & Loan Co. v. Bd. of Ed. of Hall County, 129 Ga.App. 668, 671, 200 S.E.2d 461 (1973).

We find this Court's opinion in Mallory v. Upson County Bd. of Ed., 163 Ga.App. 377, 294 S.E.2d 599 (1982), distinguishable. In that case, a county school district was seeking to condemn property located within a city's school district for the purpose of building an athletic track next to a county school it was constructing, also located within city limits. This Court noted that the county board of education had only a limited jurisdiction, and that it did not have such extraterritorial condemnation authority because

there [was] nothing ... to show that the construction and operation of an entire school...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • La Fontaine v. Signature Research, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • August 2, 2017
    ...cannot review them on appeal. Pimper v. State of Ga. , 274 Ga. 624, 627, 555 S.E.2d 459 (2001) ; Brunswick Landing, LLC v. Glynn County , 301 Ga. App. 288, 295 (4) (b), 687 S.E.2d 271 (2009).b. Forum non conveniens after AT&T Corp. v. SigalaThe Appellants argue that AT&T Corp. v. Sigala , 2......
  • Georgia Transmission Corp. v. Worley, A11A1035.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 23, 2011
    ...of Ga. Elec. Membership Corp. v. Mills, 196 Ga.App. 882, 884, 397 S.E.2d 137 (1990); see also Brunswick Landing, LLC v. Glynn County, 301 Ga.App. 288, 294(4)(a), 687 S.E.2d 271 (2009). FN16. See OCGA § 23–4–1 (“Where there is one common claim to be asserted by or against several, and one is......
  • Killearn Inc. v. Southern Structural Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 17, 2011
    ...Ga. 900, 901(2), 537 S.E.2d 80 (2000). 9. Id. at 904(4), 537 S.E.2d 80. 10. (Punctuation omitted.) Brunswick Landing, LLC v. Glynn County, 301 Ga.App. 288, 295(4)(b), 687 S.E.2d 271 (2009). See also City of Decatur v. DeKalb County, 284 Ga. 434, 438(2), 668 S.E.2d 247 (2008) (“Because ... t......
  • City of Douglasville v. Boyd
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 2020
    ...claim in the order presently on appeal. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. Brunswick Landing v. Glynn County , 301 Ga. App. 288, 295 (4) (b), 687 S.E.2d 271 (2009) (appellate court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues never ruled upon by ......
1 books & journal articles
  • Real Property - Linda S. Finley
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 62-1, September 2010
    • Invalid date
    ...at 670. 200. Id. at 776, 691 S.E.2d at 671. 201. O.C.G.A. § 13-4-4 (2010). 202. Banks, 302 Ga. App. at 777, 691 S.E.2d at 671. 203. 301 Ga. App. 288, 687 S.E.2d 271 (2009). 204. Id. at 288-89, 687 S.E.2d at 273-74. 205. Id. at 289, 687 S.E.2d at 274. 308 MERCER LAW REVIEW [Vol. 62 successfu......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT