Mallory v. Upson County Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 08 September 1982
• Docket Number: No. 63974,63974
• Citation: 294 S.E.2d 599,163 Ga.App. 377
• Parties: , 6 Ed. Law Rep. 395 MALLORY v. UPSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 599

294 S.E.2d 599

163 Ga.App. 377, 6 Ed. Law Rep. 395

MALLORY v. UPSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. 63974.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Sept. 8, 1982.

Truitt A. Mallory, Thomaston, for appellant.

Richard T. Bridges, Thomaston, for appellee.

CARLEY, Judge.

Appellee-condemnor instituted special master in rem condemnation proceedings against 2.29 acres of land owned by appellant-condemnee. Condemnor's school district encompasses all of Upson County with the exception of the land within the corporate limits of the City of Thomaston (City). The City operates an entirely separate and independent school system within a district comprised of all the land inside its corporate limits. Condemnee's property is located totally within the corporate limits of the City and, therefore, is within the City's school district. Despite the fact that the condemnor owns approximately 40 acres in the vicinity, condemnation of condemnee's property was sought because her 2.29 acres is adjacent to a high school which the condemnor is building. The condemnor's high school is also within the territorial limits of the City's school district. The proposed use of the condemnee's property is to construct an athletic track for the school.

Prior to the hearing before the special master, condemnee moved to dismiss the condemnation proceeding on several grounds. The return of the special master denied condemnee's motion to dismiss and made a monetary award. Condemnee then filed exceptions to the return of the special master. A hearing was held and the superior court overruled condemnee's exceptions and denied the motion to dismiss.

The order of the superior court denying condemnee's motion to dismiss was certified for immediate review. Condemnee's application to this court for an interlocutory appeal from that order was granted in order that we might address several important issues which are raised in this condemnation action.

1. The condemnor's motion to dismiss the instant appeal because condemnee's

brief does not comply with Rule 15(c)(3) of this court is denied. See generally McDaniel v. Pass, 130 Ga.App. 614, 615(1), 203 S.E.2d 903 (1974). The condemnor's further contention that, under Shadden v. Cowan, 213 Ga. 29, 96 S.E.2d 608 (1957), condemnee lacks "standing" to pursue the instant appeal or to advance certain arguments is without merit. As the owner of the property the condemnation of which is being sought, condemnee clearly has "standing" to contest the underlying authority under which the condemnor seeks to effectuate its taking.

2. The threshold issue is whether the condemnor, a county board of education, is authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain pursuant to the Special Master Act, Ga.Code Ann. § 36-601a [163 Ga.App. 378] et seq. Although county boards of education in the past have successfully used what Code Ann. § 36-602a denominates as the "supplementary" and "cumulative" special master procedure, it does not appear that their authority to do so has been heretofore directly challenged and judicially established. See Norton Realty & Loan Co. v. Board of Education of Hall County, 129 Ga.App. 668, 200 S.E.2d 461 (1973).

Code Ann. § 32-951 (Ga. L. 1956, p. 100) authorizes and empowers county boards of education "to take and damage, by condemnation, private property for public school purposes, either for public school building sites, playgrounds, athletic fields, or other purposes, in connection with the common schools, high schools or any public educational program which is now or may be hereafter authorized by law." Code Ann. § 32-952 (Ga. L. 1956, p. 100) provides in part: "Condemnation proceedings by such boards ... shall take the form provided in Chapters 36-1 through 36-6 or the form provided in Chapter 36-11." (Emphasis supplied.) It is essentially condemnee's contention that the use of the mandatory "shall" in Code Ann. § 32-952 evidences a legislative intent that the condemnor is authorized to condemn only pursuant to the procedures specifically enumerated therein, of which the special master procedure, Chapter 36-6A, is not one. In furtherance of this limited construction of Code Ann. § 32-952 and in refuting any interpretation of the Special Master Act, enacted in 1957, as general authority for the condemnor to use that "supplementary" and "cumulative" procedure, condemnee cites Ga. L. 1961, p. 2864. That statute amended section 2 of the 1956 enactment (Code Ann. § 32-952) to add the following proviso: "Provided, that county boards of education in counties having a population (including the population of any independent school district located in such county) of more than 500,000 according to the last or any future United States census may use the [special master] form of condemnation procedure ..." Thus, according to condemnee, after 1961 only county boards of education in counties having greater than one-half million population "may use" the special master procedure and all others "shall" use only the procedures enumerated in Code Ann. § 32-952.

Assuming for the sake of argument that condemnee is correct and that, after the 1961 enactment, under Code Ann. § 32-952 only certain county boards were authorized to use the special master procedure and further assuming that such a limitation would not be unconstitutional (but see City of Atlanta v. Sims, 210 Ga. 605, 82 S.E.2d 130 (1954)), the question must then become what effect, if any, the 1967 amendment to the Special Master Act had upon the eminent domain power of a county board of education. Ga. L. 1967, p. 825 extended the definition of "condemning body" authorized to proceed under the Special Master Act to include "all other persons, firms and corporations possessing the right or power of eminent domain, or which shall hereafter be given said right or power of eminent domain." This amendment has been broadly construed as extending full authorization to proceed under the Special Master Act to a condemnor which is technically not a "person, firm or corporation" but which otherwise has the general power of eminent domain. See Harwell v. Georgia Power Co., 246 Ga. 203, 269 S.E.2d 464 (1980); Nodvin v. Georgia Power Co., 125 Ga.App. 821, 189 S.E.2d 118 (1972). Consistent with this broad interpretation, we believe that the 1967 enactment should be construed as evidencing the legislative intent that the special master proceeding be considered a "supplementary" and "cumulative" form of condemnation in all cases wherein the condemnor otherwise possesses the power of eminent domain. Accordingly, "[w]hile the legislature could also have amended §§ [32-952] and 36-602a in 1967, leaving absolutely no room for construction, we believe the general intent to confer the use of the special master proceeding on [all condemnors, including county boards of education] is clear, and any apparent conflicts can be harmonized to effect this intent. [Cit.]" Nodvin, 125 Ga.App. at 822, 189 S.E.2d 118, supra. The superior court did not err in holding that the condemnor is authorized to proceed under the Special Master Act.

2. The next issue to be resolved is whether the condemnor has the authority to condemn property outside its boundaries in order to build an athletic track.

"[S]tatutes conferring the power of eminent domain must be given a strict construction, 'and when the power is granted, the extent to which it may be exercised is limited to the express terms or clear implication of the statute in which the grant is contained.' [Cits.]" Howard v. City of Atlanta, 190 Ga. 730, 731-732, 10 S.E.2d 190 (1940). The condemnor, in asserting an extra-territorial right of condemnation, relies most heavily upon the holding in Norton Realty & Loan Co. v. Board of Education of Hall County, 129 Ga.App. 668, 673, 200 S.E.2d 461, supra: "[I]t is clear that where the power of eminent domain is being utilized for the purpose of creating or improving a sewage system and the land taken is reasonably necessary to accomplish this end, the condemning authority may take land outside its territorial limits. The evidence here authorized a finding that River Bend School would have to close unless a satisfactory sewage system was created. To resolve this, the Hall County Board of Education had to construct a sewer line from the school to the nearest and most favorable point of entry into the City of Gainesville sewer system. Since the existing system operated by the City of Gainesville did not extend beyond the city limits, the County Board of Education condemned [an] easement through condemnee's land which lay partially within and partially without the city limits in order to reach and connect with the existing city sewer line. Under this state of facts the Hall County Board of Education has the power to condemn a sewer easement outside its territorial boundaries. [Cit.]"

The "state of facts" which exists in the instant...