Love v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors
Decision Date | 03 December 2018 |
Docket Number | A18A1778 |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Parties | LOVE et al. v. FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS et al. |
Wayne B. Kendall, East Point, for Appellant.
Kimberly Ann Alexander, Cheryl Melissa Ann Ringer, Patrise M. Perkins-Hooker, Atlanta, Kaye Woodard Burwell, for Appellee.
This case arises out of a dispute over whether the Fulton County Board of Tax Assessors (the "Tax Board" or "Board") exercised its duty to investigate diligently and determine whether the interest of the Atlanta Falcons Stadium Co., LLC (the "Stadium Company") in the Mercedes-Benz Stadium (the "New Stadium") is subject to ad valorem property taxation. Based on that dispute, Albert E. Love and several other citizens and taxpayers of Fulton County (collectively, the "plaintiffs")1 sued the Tax Board, the individual Tax Board members, and the Chief Appraiser of the Tax Board (collectively, the "defendants")2 for a writ of mandamus and injunctive and declaratory relief, and the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6). The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and then dismissed several other pending motions as moot, including the plaintiffs’ motion to have OCGA § 10-9-10 declared unconstitutional. This appeal by the plaintiffs followed.
For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ mandamus claims and their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief brought against the Tax Board and the other defendants in their official capacities. We reverse the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief brought against the Tax Board members and the Chief Appraiser in their individual capacities. Because we reverse the dismissal of those claims, we also reverse the trial court's decision to dismiss as moot the plaintiffs’ motion to have OCGA § 10-9-10 declared unconstitutional.
We review de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss. Walker County v. Tri-State Crematory , 292 Ga.App. 411, 411, 664 S.E.2d 788 (2008).
Under OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6), a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted should not be sustained unless (1) the allegations of the complaint disclose with certainty that the claimant would not be entitled to relief under any state of provable facts asserted in support thereof; and (2) the movant establishes that the claimant could not possibly introduce evidence within the framework of the complaint sufficient to warrant a grant of the relief sought. In deciding a motion to dismiss, all pleadings are to be construed most favorably to the party who filed them, and all doubts regarding such pleadings must be resolved in the filing party's favor. Nevertheless, where the face of the complaint demonstrates that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support an essential element of a claim, dismissal of that claim is appropriate. Even when a complaint is liberally construed, there still must be some legal basis for recovery.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Lord v. Lowe , 318 Ga.App. 222, 223, 741 S.E.2d 155 (2012).
Additionally, a trial court can consider exhibits attached to and incorporated into the complaint in reviewing a motion to dismiss, and "[t]o the extent that there is any discrepancy between the allegations in the complaint and the exhibits attached to it, the exhibits control." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Racette v. Bank of America, N. A. , 318 Ga.App. 171, 172, 733 S.E.2d 457 (2012). See OCGA § 9-11-10 (c) ().
Guided by these principles, we turn to the plaintiffs’ amended petition and the exhibits attached thereto, which state the following.
The Georgia World Congress Center Authority ("the World Congress Center") is a public corporation that is an instrumentality of the State of Georgia. The World Congress Center formerly owned the Georgia Dome, the home venue of the National Football League Atlanta Falcons from 1992 until 2016. The World Congress Center now owns the New Stadium, which became the home venue of the Atlanta Falcons in 2017.
Before the selection of a site for the New Stadium, the World Congress Center and other parties associated with the Atlanta Falcons entered into certain memoranda of understanding that addressed their expectations and understanding with respect to the financing, construction, development, and operation of the New Stadium. Specifically, in April 2013, the World Congress Center, the Stadium Company, and the Atlanta Falcons Football Club, LLC (the "Club") entered into an 86-page Memorandum of Understanding for a Successor Facility to the Georgia Dome (the "MOU"). On the same date, the aforementioned parties and the Atlanta Development Authority d/b/a/ Invest Atlanta entered into a 99-page Tri-Party Memorandum of Understanding for a Successor Facility to the Georgia Dome (the "Tri-Party MOU").
Subsequently, during a regular board meeting conducted on August 22, 2013, the Tax Board addressed whether the real and personal property interests referenced in the MOU and the Tri-Party MOU would be subject to ad valorem taxation. The Tax Board unanimously approved and issued a Statement of Intent to Exempt Real and Personal Property (the "Statement of Intent"), which provided:
Subsequent to the Tax Board's issuance of the Statement of Intent, on May 18, 2015, the World Congress Center and the Stadium Company executed a Stadium License and Management Agreement (the "SLM Agreement"), which, among other things, granted the Stadium Company an exclusive license to use and occupy the New Stadium and detailed the terms of that license. The SLM Agreement stated that it was only intended to grant the Stadium Company a usufruct to use and occupy the New Stadium and was not intended to transfer an estate or other real property interest.
Following the parties’ execution of the SLM Agreement, the New Stadium was completed and became operational in August 2017. The Tax Board did not assess ad valorem taxes on the Stadium Company's interest in the New Stadium.
The plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Georgia who own real property and pay ad valorem taxes in Fulton County. In October 2017, they filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and other relief against the Tax Board and against the Board's members and the Board's Chief Appraiser in their individual and official capacities. Attached as exhibits to the petition, as twice amended, were the MOU, the Tri-Party MOU, the SLM Agreement, the Statement of Intent, and the minutes from the August 22, 2013 Tax Board meeting.
The plaintiffs’ amended petition alleged, among other things, that the Tax Board was obligated to investigate, identify, and assess the fair market value of all property in Fulton County subject to ad valorem taxes, and that the Board had failed to carry out these duties with respect to the property interest of the Stadium Company in the New Stadium. According to the petition, the interest conveyed by the World Congress Center to the Stadium Company in the SLM Agreement was a leasehold interest or an estate for years subject to ad valorem taxation rather than a non-taxable usufruct or license interest.
The plaintiffs sought mandamus relief to require the defendants to exercise their duties pertaining to tax assessment, including the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brantley Cnty. Dev. Partners, LLC v. Brantley Cnty.
...for declaratory or injunctive relief brought against county officers in their individual capacities." Love v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 348 Ga.App. 309, 821 S.E.2d 575, 585 (2018).Here, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from enforcing regulations against Plaint......
-
Boyd v. Neal
...The burden of proving a clear legal right falls on the party seeking the writ of mandamus. Love v. Fulton County Bd. of Tax Assessors , 348 Ga. App. 309, 317 (2), 821 S.E.2d 575 (2018)."A clear legal right to the relief sought may be found only where the claimant seeks to compel the perform......
-
Brantley Cnty. Dev. Partners v. Brantley Cnty.
...... vested when it submitted its application with the EPD. See Fulton Cnty. v. Action Outdoor Advert., JV , 711. S.E.2d 682, 685 (Ga. 2011) (“[S]ubmission of a. ... relief brought against county officers in their individual. capacities.” Love v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Tax. Assessors , 821 S.E.2d 575, 585 (Ga.Ct.App. 2018). . . ......
-
Crown Series, LLC v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC.
...the evidence submitted in support of those filings, and the hearing held by the Court...." See Love v. Fulton County Bd. of Tax Assessors , 348 Ga. App. 309, 315 (1), 821 S.E.2d 575 (2018) ("A trial court is presumed to have followed the law in rendering a decision, unless and until that pr......