Department of Transp. v. Livaditis

• Decision Date: 15 June 1973
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 47881,47881,1
• Citation: 199 S.E.2d 573,129 Ga.App. 358
• Parties: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSACTION v. J. E. LIVADITIS et al
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 573

199 S.E.2d 573

129 Ga.App. 358

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSACTION v. J. E. LIVADITIS et al.

No. 47881.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

June 15, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 12, 1973.

Syllabus by the Court

1. This case is considered as being within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals under authority of Benton v. State Hwy. Dept., 220 Ga. 674, 141 S.E.2d 396.

2. When documentary evidence is excluded because it was not tendered in compliance with a notice to produce, oral testimony relating to the same subject matter may likewise be excluded.

3. Where property is taken for a road, the test of the purpose for condemnation is the right of the public to use it rather than the number of persons who may actually use it.

4, 5. The condemnor has authority to condemn land for use as a local service road if in its opinion, such road is necessary or desirable.

The Department of Transportation of the State of Georgia (hereinafter referred to as condemnor) brought this action to condemn for state-aid road purposes certain land owned by John E. Livaditis (hereinafter referred to as condemnee). The condemnor filed a declaration of taking setting out that the property was to be taken for state-aid road purposes (a limited access highway); that the property of the condemnee was essential for the construction of the project in question; that the director of the condemnor found it necessary that the right of way and rights be acquired under provisions of Code Ann. § 36-1303 (Ga.L.1961, pp. 517, 520; 1962, Ex.Sess., Sept., pp. 37-44; 1963, p. 124). The trial court entered an order condemning the property and rights described in the petition in fee simple to the use of the condemnor.

The condemnee filed a notice of appeal and requested a jury trial as to the issue of compensation. He also filed what was denominated an answer and cross complaint by which he sought to have the court set aside, vacate and annul the declaration of taking previously ordered, and to temporarily restrain the condemnor from performing any work on the property until further order of the court. The condemnee alleged that the sole purpose of the taking on the part of the condemnor was to provide a private road for Georgia Marietta Company, owners and operators of Marietta Industrial Park, and that the road served no other purpose other than the needs of Georgia Marietta Company; that the condemnor had not acquired the consent and permission of the local governing authorities in establishing the road; that sufficient surveys and studies showing the necessity of the state-aid road had not been made; that the taking did not serve the needs of Cobb County or its citizens but only the needs of Georgia Marietta Company; that the director of the condemnor had acted in bad faith and that the acts on his part were an abuse and misuse of his power as granted by the laws of this state.

A rule nisi was issued requiring the condemnor to show cause and trial had upon the issues made by the petition to set aside the declaration of taking. Subsequent thereto, the trial judge entered its finding of facts, conclusions of law and judgment which set aside, vacated and annulled the declaration of taking together with any title acquired by the condemnor and vested title in the condemnee as if said condemnation had not been filed. From this judgment appeal was taken.

Robert A. Flournoy, Charles A. Evans, Marietta, for appellant.

J. M. Grubbs, Jr., Adele Platt, Marietta, George W. Carreker, Smyrna, for appellees.

QUILLIAN, Judge.

1. The first headnote requires no elaboration.

2. Three of the twenty-seven enumerations of error deal with the rejection of certain evidence sought to be introduced by the plaintiff. The trial judge found that the plaintiff had failed to provide the condemnee with certain plans under a notice to produce. He therefore excluded further oral testimony sought to be elicited with regard to the plans.

Section 37 of the Civil Practice Act (Code Ann. § 81A-137; Ga.L.1966, pp. 609, 650; 1967, pp. 226, 235) provides that upon failure to produce under Section 34 of the Civil Practice Act (Code Ann. § 81A-134; Ga.L.1966, pp. 609, 646; 1967, pp. 226, 233; 1972, pp. 510, 525), the trial judge may impose certain sanctions, among which is prohibiting the disobedient party from introducing designated documents or items of testimony. Here the trial judge quite properly applied these sanctions. Although the condemnor argues that the best evidence rule does not apply to a situation of this sort, it is clear that it was proper to prohibit oral testimony regarding the same matter as that of the excluded documents since to allow it would defeat the effectiveness of the sanction imposed under Section 37 of the Civil Practice Act.

3. The bulk of the condemnor's enumerations of error deal with the trial judge's finding of fact and conclusions of law. In considering this, special attention should be paid to the Act dealing with the power of the superior court to set aside a declaration of taking. Code Ann. § 36-1303(6) provides that the order of the Director of the State Highway Department (now Department of Transportation) 'shall be conclusive as to the use of the property condemned, as well as the authority to condemn under the provisions of this Chapter.' Under the law, 'the condemnee may petition the Superior Court to vacate, set aside and annul the declaration for: (a) fraud or bad faith, as contemplated under Code § 37-709, (b) improper use of the powers provided under the Act, (c) abuse or misuse of the powers, or such other questions as may be raised under Code § 36-1308, i.e., questions of law arising upon the pleadings after the filing of the declaration of taking.' Owens v. State Hwy. Dept., 113 Ga.App. 608, 610, 149 S.E.2d 406, 408. Nevertheless, 'The power of the court in this respect shall not be construed as extending to a determination of questions of necessity, but there shall be a prima facie presumption that the property condemned is taken for and is necessary to the public use provided for in this Chapter.' Code Ann. § 36-1303(6).

A thorough discussion of the exercise of the power of eminent domain is found in Miles v. Brown, 223 Ga. 557, 558, 156 S.E.2d 898, 900: "The necessity or expediency of taking property for public use is a legislative question upon which the owner is not entitled to a hearing under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the same clause of the Constitution of this state.' . . . The owner of the land sought to be condemned cannot prevent such taking because there is other property which might have been suitable for the purpose (King v. City of McCaysville, 198 Ga. 829(3), 33 S.E.2d 99) or that the construction of a power line is (a) not necessary or (b) another and more direct line is obtainable. Miller v. Georgia Power Co., 222 Ga. 239, 242, 149 S.E.2d 479. 'A large discretion is vested in a party having the right to condemn, in the selection of the particular property to be condemned and such selection should not be interferred with or controlled by the courts, unless made in bad faith, or capriciously or wantonly injurious, or in some respect beyond the privilege conferred by statute or its charter."

In interpreting Code Ann. § 36-1303, the Supreme Court has found that the determination of necessity by the condemning authority is final and conclusive. Pye v. State Hwy. Dept., 226 Ga. 389, 406, 175 S.E.2d 510. This, of course, does not mean that the power of condemnation may be unfairly exercised or that a condemnee might be 'singled out.' However, the protection offered is against clear abuses of power under the Act and does not go to questions as to feasibility, practicality and desirability. Miller v. Ga. Power Co., 222 Ga. 239, 241, 149 S.E.2d 479. Hence, the finding with regard to feasibility was irrelevant to the issues here involved.

The question here was solely whether the condemnor had acted outside its power as prohibited by Code Ann. § 36-1303. The condemnor is not authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property to be used by private individuals for private use and private gain. Housing Authority, etc. v. Johnson, 209 Ga. 560, 563, 74 S.E.2d 891. The trial judge's order was predicated on the basic premise that the road to be built on the property taken would be used by private individuals and that the taking was nor for a public purpose.

Section 52 of the Civil Practice Act (Code Ann. § 81A-152; Ga.L.1969, pp. 645, 646; 1970, pp. 170, 171) requires findings of facts and conclusions of law by a trial judge sitting without a jury. The provision in...