Forsyth County v. White, S00A0528.
| Citation | 532 S.E.2d 392,272 Ga. 619 |
| Decision Date | 12 June 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. S00A0528.,S00A0528. |
| Parties | FORSYTH COUNTY et al. v. WHITE et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jenkins & Nelson, Frank E. Jenkins, Peter R. Olson, Cartersville, for appellant.
Meadows, Ichter & Trigg, Michael J. Bowers, Mark G. Trigg, Alston & Bird, Peter M. Degnan, George E. Butler II, Atlanta, for appellee.
Capital Resources, Inc. ("Capital"), maintains the Dick Creek sewage treatment plant in Forsyth County, Georgia. The plant was originally constructed with a 130,000-gallon-per-day capacity, which was sufficient to handle the needs of a neighboring subdivision. However, after the Dick Creek facility began operations, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division approved plans to expand the system to enable it to process 760,000 gallons per day.
Because the Georgia Department of Natural Resources required the County to step in and operate the plant if it were not developed and maintained properly, Capital's predecessor deeded the plant to the County in trust.
In pertinent part, the trust deed given to the County provides:
Upon application to and approval by the Board of Commissioners, the Utility System may extend service to adjacent or contiguous properties owned or developed by Grantor or to any other properties provided such extension shall only be made for surplus capacity of the Utility System in addition to the capacity required for Aberdeen [subdivision].
(Emphasis supplied.)
The County approved the extension of sewer service to two additional subdivisions and a public library. That extension required an increase in the daily flow of water to 200,000 gallons.
This case arose when the County refused to approve a request by Dewey C. White to approve yet another increase in the capacity of the system. White, who owns 316 acres of land adjacent to the system, seeks to develop a subdivision and to connect it to the Dick Creek facility. In order to accommodate the needs of the proposed subdivision, White must expand the facility's service by 150,000 gallons per day, with an option for an additional 75,000 gallons.
White applied for a utility facility encroachment permit from the County Engineering Department, which would allow placement of sewer lines under roadways to connect the property with the Dick Creek system. However, the Engineering Department did not review the application because the County refused to approve the expansion of the Dick Creek facility.
White filed suit seeking mandamus against the County Engineer, and seeking an injunction against the County Board of Commissioners to compel approval of the expansion. (The trial court treated the claim for injunction as a petition for mandamus.) The trial court granted two writs of mandamus: (1) ordering the County Engineer to proceed with the permit application, and (2) ordering the County to approve expansion of the sewer system. The County appeals.
1. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. Appellees chose to proceed in superior court by filing an original petition for mandamus. They cannot now assert that this appeal is from the review of an administrative decision, and that the County should have filed a discretionary application. See King v. City of Bainbridge, 272 Ga. 427, 531 S.E.2d 350 (2000); cf. Dunlap v. City of Atlanta, 272 Ga. 523, 531 S.E.2d 702 (2000).
2. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hartsfield v. Salem, 213 Ga. 760, 101 S.E.2d 701 (1958). It follows that a writ of mandamus will not issue unless there exists a legal duty which is required to be performed. Bedingfield v. Adams, 221 Ga. 69, 142 S.E.2d 915 (1965). And the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hildebrand v. City of Warner Robins
...And, although Hildebrand bears the ultimate burden of proving that a clear duty is imposed by the ordinances, Forsyth County v. White , 272 Ga. 619, 620 (2), 532 S.E.2d 392 (2000), at this stage of the litigation, when the relevant ordinances may still be introduced, we cannot say that he "......
-
Riley v. S. LNG, Inc.
...omitted.) Bibb County v. Monroe County , 294 Ga. 730, 735 (2) (b), 755 S.E.2d 760 (2014) ; see also Forsyth County v. White , 272 Ga. 619, 620 (2), 532 S.E.2d 392 (2000). Moreover,a public official's exercise of discretion will not be disturbed by a mandamus order unless the official's acti......
-
Enviro Pro, Inc. v. Emanuel County
...judgment relief. "[M]andamus will not issue unless there [is] a legal duty ... to be performed. [Cit.]" Forsyth County v. White, 272 Ga. 619, 620(2), 532 S.E.2d 392 (2000). To obtain a declaratory judgment, plaintiff must show uncertainty or insecurity arising out of a dispute, the necessit......
-
MID-GEORGIA v. Meriwether County
...County, 272 Ga. 479, 532 S.E.2d 376 (2000) (seeking compensation as full-time magistrate and part-time clerk); Forsyth County v. White, 272 Ga. 619, 532 S.E.2d 392 (2000) (seeking approval of expansion of sewer treatment facility); Griffies v. Coweta County, 272 Ga. 506, 530 S.E.2d 718 (200......
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...bring the action. Id. at 509, 530 S.E.2d at 720. Chief Justice Benham dissented. Id., 530 S.E.2d at 721 (Benham, C.J., dissenting). 245. 272 Ga. 619, 532 S.E.2d 392 (2000). 246. Id. at 619, 532 S.E.2d at 393-94. Plaintiff owned land on which he wished to develop a subdivision and to connect......
-
Construction Law - Dennis J. Webb, Jr., Justin S. Scott, and Henry L. Balkcom Iv
...Sedimentation Control Ordinance, Sec. 95-3(b)-9, Sec. 5). 261. Id. at 612-13, 538 S.E.2d at 525. 262. Id. at 613, 538 S.E.2d at 525. 263. 272 Ga. 619, 532 S.E.2d 392 (2000). 264. Id. at 619, 532 S.E.2d at 393-94. 265. Id. at 620, 532 S.E.2d at 394. 266. Id. 267. Id. 268. Id. 269. Id. (citin......