City of Cordele v. Hill
| Decision Date | 24 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 39334,39334 |
| Citation | 300 S.E.2d 161,250 Ga. 628 |
| Parties | The CITY OF CORDELE, Georgia, et al. v. Ada HILL, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Guy Velpoe Roberts, Jr., Roberts, Roberts & Rainwater, Edwin T. Cotton, Cordele, for City of Cordele, Georgia, et al.
John C. Pridgen, Davis, Pridgen & Jones, Vienna, for Ada Hill et al.
The sole question here is whether or not Mrs. Tanner's dwelling is a "mobile home" within the meaning of the following ordinance enacted by the City of Cordele: "A Mobile Home is a detached, single-family dwelling unit designed for long-term occupancy; designed to be transported after fabrication on its own wheels, arriving at the site where it is to be occupied as a dwelling unit complete, usually including appliances and furniture and ready for occupancy."
The evidence shows without contradiction that the dwelling was fabricated in two separate units, which arrived on the lot in separate units, and that neither unit was designed to be occupied as a dwelling independently of the other, but to the contrary, the two units were designed to be joined together.
The rule of construction in this state is that of the majority of states, that "zoning ordinances should be strictly construed in favor of the property owner, and ambiguities in the language of zoning ordinances should be resolved in favor of the free use of property." Fayette County v. Seagraves, 245 Ga. 196, 197, 264 S.E.2d 13 (1980). Accordingly, inasmuch as the structure was not designed to arrive "at the site where it is to be occupied as a dwelling unit complete," (emphasis added), it is without the ambit of the ordinance, and the issuance of the injunction by the trial court must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur, except HILL, C.J., MARSHALL, P.J., and GREGORY, J., who dissent.
"The cardinal rule to guide the construction of laws is, first, to ascertain the legislative intent and purpose in enacting the law, and then to give it that construction which will effectuate the legislative intent and purpose." Ford Motor Co. v. Abercrombie, 207 Ga. 464, 467, 62 S.E.2d 209; City of Jesup v. Bennett, 226 Ga. 606, 608, 176 S.E.2d 81 (1970); OCGA § 1-3-1(a) (Code Ann. § 102-102).
The legislative intent in enactment of the city's "mobile home" ordinance clearly was to prohibit the use of mobile homes as residences within the city. This the city presumably has the authority to do, as no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeKalb County v. Post Apartment Homes
...County v. Seagraves, supra at 197, 264 S.E.2d 13; accord Glynn County v. Palmatary, supra at 574, 277 S.E.2d 665; City of Cordele v. Hill, 250 Ga. 628, 300 S.E.2d 161 (1983). Therefore, any ambiguity or uncertainty in a land regulation ordinance must be construed in favor of the free use of......
-
Tennessee Manufactured Housing Ass'n v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville
...was not a "mobile home" because it was not a complete structure at the time it was delivered to the site. 10 City of Cordele v. Hill, 250 Ga. 628, 300 S.E.2d 161, 162 (1983). IV. We find that Tenn.Code Ann. § 13-24-201's protection extends to double-wide manufactured homes. Accordingly, we ......
-
Bo Fancy Productions, Inc. v. Rabun County Bd. of Com'rs
...ambiguities in the language employed in zoning statutes should be resolved in favor of the free use of property. City of Cordele v. Hill, 250 Ga. 628, 300 S.E.2d 161 (1983). Resolving all ambiguities in favor of Appellants, the rally, despite its commercial aspect, would constitute a use of......
-
Johnston v. Johnston
...so. After conducting the hearing, the trial court found that the "marital home" was, in fact, a "mobile home." See City of Cordele v. Hill, 250 Ga. 628, 300 S.E.2d 161 (1983) (distinction between modular home and mobile home). "Whether a dwelling is a mobile home is a mixed question of law ......