Housing Authority of City of Decatur v. Schroeder, 23545

• Decision Date: 08 September 1966
• Docket Number: No. 23545,23545
• Citation: 151 S.E.2d 226,222 Ga. 417
• Parties: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF DECATUR v. Margaret P. SCHROEDER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 226

151 S.E.2d 226

222 Ga. 417

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF DECATUR v. Margaret P. SCHROEDER.

No. 23545.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Sept. 8, 1966.

Syllabus by the Court

The Constitution of Georgia Demands that just and adequate compensation be paid for condemned property based upon the value of such property at the time of its actual taking, and a holding to the effect that in finding just and adequate compensation, a jury could consider the value of the property at a time prior to the actual time of taking is erroneous.

George H. Carley, Decatur, Claude E. Hambrick, Atlanta, for appellant.

George P. Dillard, Decatur, for appellee.

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, E. J. Summerour, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for party at interest not party to record.

ALMAND, Justice.

On November 2, 1964, the Housing Authority of the City of Decatur filed its petition in DeKalb Superior Court seeking to condemn a described tract of land of Mrs. Margaret P. Schroeder. The condemnation of the property was sought as a part of an urban redevelopment project under the provisions of the 'Urban Redevelopment Act' (Ga.Laws 1955, p. 354; Code Ann. § 69-1101 et seq.). Assessors were appointed and to their award, both parties filed appeals to the Superior Court. On the trial of the case, there was a verdict and judgment awarding $21,700.00 to the condemnee, and the Housing Authority filed its motion for a new trial which was overruled. Ground no. 4 asserted that the trial court erred in giving the following charge to the jury: '* * * that the condemnee, Mrs. Margaret P. Schroeder, contends that the property in question has been fully, or substantially fully, rented for some time prior to the time it became general knowledge in the neighborhood that the property would be taken sometime in the immediate future for urban renewal purposes. And for this reason, the rental units became vacant and she was unable to rent them because of the possible imminent taking of the property for urban renewal purposes. If you find this to be true, you may take into consideration the rent such property was producing or had recently produced at the time of taking and give it such weight as you find it to bear in arriving at just and adequate compensation for the owner.'

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. 113 Ga.App. 432, 148 S.E.2d 188. In ruling on the assignment that the above quoted charge was error, the Court of Appeals in its opinion said 'just and adequate compensation means putting the deprived landowner as nearly as possible back in the same monetary position he was in before the seizure occurred. The government may not depress the value of land, whether by signs causing the public to think the land has already been taken, or by public announcements indicating imminent seizure, so as to deprive the owner of the use to which the property is being put, and then contend that the depressed value is in fact the true value of the property on the date the technicalities of the 'taking' have been performed'. Housing Authority of City of Decatur v. Schroeder, 113 Ga.App. 432, 434, 148 S.E.2d 188, 190. In the headnote corresponding to the first division of its opinion, the Court of Appeals held 'where it appeared from the evidence that property involved in condemnation proceedings for urban renewal purposes was low rent housing in a slum area which had stayed substantially fully rented until activity by the political subdivision involved, causing tenants to believe that its destruction was imminent,...