Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Visiting Nurse Health System of Metro Atlanta Inc., A02A0215

• Decision Date: 11 July 2002
• Docket Number: A02A0215
• Citation: 256 Ga. App. 475,568 S.E.2d 799
• Parties: FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS v. VISITING NURSE HEALTH SYSTEM OF METROPOLITAN ATLANTA, INC. A02A0215. In the Court of Appeals of Georgia FIRST DIVISION
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS v VISITING NURSE HEALTH SYSTEM OF METROPOLITAN ATLANTA, INC.

A02A0215

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia FIRST DIVISION

July 11, 2002

POPE, P. J., RUFFIN and BARNES, JJ.

BARNES, Judge.

The Fulton County Board of Tax Assessors ("Board") appeals the judgment entered on a jury verdict which found the Visiting Nurse Health System of Metropolitan Atlanta, Inc. ("VNHS") exempt from ad valorem taxes. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

In the first appearance of this case before this court, we reversed the grant of summary judgment to VNHS, concluding that the trial court erred in holding as a matter of law that VNHS qualified as a purely public charitable institution exempt from ad valorem taxes. Fulton County Board of Tax Assessors v. Visiting Nurse &c., 243 Ga. App. 64, 65 (2) (532 SE2d 416) (2000). We also held that VNHS did not qualify for tax exemption as a nonprofit hospital. Id. at 67 (3). Following the remittitur, the Board moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted as to whether VNHS was a nonprofit hospital, and denied as to whether VNHS was a public charity. The case was tried by a jury, which found VNHS exempt from ad valorem taxation in Fulton County. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict, and subsequently denied the Board's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Board appeals.

1. The Board argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant its motion for directed verdict, in failing to rule on its motion for directed verdict when it was made, and in failing to grant its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Board presents no argument concerning the second ground, which we thus consider abandoned pursuant to Ga. Court of Appeals Rule 27 (c) (2).

2. The Board addresses both of its remaining enumerations together, arguing essentially that "insufficient" evidence supported the jury's verdict. The standard for granting motions for directed verdict and for j.n.o.v. is the same. Crump v. McDonald, 239 Ga. App. 647, 647-648 (1) (520 SE2d 283) (1999). They may be granted only when no conflict exists in the evidence and the evidence presented, with all reasonable inferences therefrom, demands a particular verdict. OCGA 9-11-50 (a). On appeal, the appellate court considers whether any evidence supports the jury's findings. Ogletree v. Navistar International Transport, 271 Ga. 644 (522 SE2d 467) (1999). "Where there is any evidence upon which the verdict can be based, the jury is free to disbelieve whatever facts are inconsistent with their conclusion and the court cannot substitute its conclusion for that of the jury and enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 647.

The issue presented to this jury was whether VNHS qualified for a tax exemption as an institution of "purely public charity" under OCGA 48-5-41 (a) (4). In determining this issue, the jury considered three factors: (1) whether VNHS is an institution "devoted entirely to charitable pursuits"; (2) whether VNHS's charitable pursuits are "for the benefit of the public"; and (3) whether the use of the property is "exclusively devoted to those charitable pursuits." York Rite Bodies of Freemasonry v. Board of Equalization, 261 Ga. 558 (2) (408 SE2d 699) (1991).

a. The Board first argues that VNHS "presented no new evidence" at trial, and that "[a]ll the evidence at trial was already part of the record at the time Appellant previously appealed the grant of summary judgment". Therefore, the Board contends, given VNHS's "failure to provide the trial Court with any new evidence during the trial of this case, Appellee was not entitled to a verdict in its favor." In our previous opinion, we reversed a grant of summary judgment, not a verdict, and held that "given the dearth of evidence that VNHS qualifies as a purely public charity, issues of fact remain as to whether it is exempt from ad valorem taxes." Fulton County Board of Tax Assessors v. Visiting Nurse &c., supra, 243 Ga. App. at 67. The Board's argument that VNHS presented no new evidence is puzzling, as VNHS presented to the jury testimony from five witnesses, evidence that was not before this court in the previous appeal. The trial court did not err in denying the Board's motion for directed verdict or j.n.o.v. based on this court's previous reversal of a summary judgment grant.

b. The Board next argues that insufficient evidence established that VNHS is an institution of purely public charity, because the majority of its patients pay for services through Medicare, Medicaid, or insurance. As we noted previously, "where the primary purpose of the institution is to serve those patients who do pay, then it cannot be said to be purely charitable." Id. at 66. The issue is not, however, whether "insufficient" evidence supported the jury's conclusion that VNHS is an institution of...