Morgan Cnty. v. Gay
| Decision Date | 23 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | A19A1506,A19A1190,A19A1626,A19A1627 |
| Citation | 834 S.E.2d 576,352 Ga.App. 555 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MORGAN COUNTY v. GAY. Gay v. Morgan County. Morgan County v. Gay. Gay v. Morgan County. |
Hall Booth Smith, Christian G. Henry ; Buckley Christopher, Timothy J. Buckley III, Kelly L. Christopher, for Morgan County. Baker Donelson, Charles L. Ruffin, Ivy N. Cadle, Michael G. Horner, for Gay.
These consolidated appeals arise from Morgan County, Georgia's (‘the County‘), attempt to obtain a piece of property from Jimmy Gay to serve as a buffer between a County-owned closed landfill and the remainder of Gay's property due to the migration of methane from the landfill. The County petitioned to condemn the buffer property, and Gay moved to dismiss the petition. In this condemnation action, the County sought to exclude evidence of damages to the remainder of Gay's property caused by the stigma of the methane contamination on the buffer property, but the special master permitted admission of such evidence. The special master denied Gay's motion to dismiss and awarded him compensation for the buffer property as well as consequential damages. Both parties filed exceptions to the special master's legal conclusions and appealed the special master's award, seeking a jury trial as to Gay's fair and just compensation. The superior court affirmed the special master's denial of Gay's motion to dismiss the condemnation petition and found that the County's complaints about the methane contamination evidence admitted before the special master were moot in light of the upcoming de novo jury trial.
In the meantime, Gay filed a separate complaint for inverse condemnation concerning the damage the methane contamination was causing to the portion of his property the County was not attempting to obtain. Through this action, Gay sought injunctive relief to compel the County to abate the nuisance from the landfill and to enjoin the condemnation of the buffer property pending the outcome of the inverse condemnation proceeding. Conversely, the County sought to dismiss or stay the inverse condemnation proceeding pending the outcome of the condemnation proceeding. The superior court denied Gay's motions for injunctive relief, denied the County's motion to dismiss the inverse condemnation action, and found the County's motion to stay the proceedings moot.
Both parties obtained certificates of immediate review in both the condemnation and inverse condemnation cases, and this Court granted all four interlocutory applications. In Case No. A19A1506, Gay appeals the superior court's affirmance of the special master's denial of his motion to dismiss the condemnation petition. In Case No. A19A1190, the County appeals (1) the special master's admission of evidence concerning the damage to the value of the remaining property due to methane migration onto the buffer property; (2) the denial of its motion for partial directed verdict; and (3) the superior court's determination that these issues are moot in light of the request for a jury trial. In Case No. A19A1626, the County appeals the superior court's denial of its motion to dismiss or stay the inverse condemnation proceeding. Lastly, in Case No. A19A1627, Gay appeals the superior court's denial of its motion for preliminary injunction seeking to compel the County to abate the nuisance and to enjoin the condemnation proceeding.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm the superior court's denial of Gay's motion to dismiss the condemnation proceeding in Case No. A19A1506. In Case No. A19A1190, we affirm the superior court's finding that the County's exception to the denial of its motion in limine is moot and find that, given that no proper motion for partial directed verdict was filed, the remaining enumeration provides nothing for review. Next, we affirm the superior court's order denying the County's motion to dismiss or stay Gay's inverse condemnation action in Case No. A19A1626. Finally, in Case No. A19A1627, we affirm the superior court's denial of Gay's motion to enjoin the condemnation proceedings, reverse the superior court's finding that Gay's motion to enjoin the County from continuing to contaminate his property is moot, and remand that motion for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In condemnation proceedings, we will affirm the superior court's factual findings if there is any evidence to support them. City of Atlanta v. Heirs of Champion , 244 Ga. 620, 621, 261 S.E.2d 343 (1979). As to questions of law, however, we owe no deference to the superior court and apply the plain legal error standard of review. Georgia Transmission Corp. v. Worley , 312 Ga. App. 855, 856, 720 S.E.2d 305 (2011).
So viewed, the evidence shows that in the early 1990s the County closed a landfill it owned. It was required to monitor pollution emanating from the landfill and, in 1994, after determining methane was contaminating neighboring property, it obtained a buffer of land next to the landfill. In 2004, Gay acquired property abutting both the first buffer property and the landfill for $1.3 million with the intention of developing it into a residential subdivision called Wellington Estates. Gay spent over $1.5 million developing Phase 1 of Wellington Estates and had conversations with a builder to purchase lots, but the economic recession intervened. Phase 2 of Wellington Estates has not yet been developed.
In 2010, the County detected methane in a monitoring well on the boundary of the landfill's property, and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division ("EPD") required the County to implement corrective measures to mitigate off-site methane migration. As part of that process, the County received permission from Gay to install temporary methane monitoring wells on the edge of his property. Although the County submitted a corrective action plan in 2011 to the EPD which recommended obtaining additional buffer land from Gay, no timely action was taken. In 2015, methane was detected at the border of Gay's property.
On January 21, 2016, the EPD issued a notice of deficiency to the County and indicated that the County's 2011 remediation plan should be implemented within 60 days. In response, in March 2016, the County contacted Gay about purchasing additional buffer land from him. In April 2016, the County retained a hydro geologist, who opined that acquiring the additional buffer zone from Gay would eliminate any reasonable probability of methane migrating onto land owned by Gay.
By May 2016, the County offered to purchase the buffer property from Gay at a price based on the tax-assessed value of the land. In September 2016, Gay and the County exchanged offers for the purchase of the buffer property, but no agreement was reached. Discussions continued into November 2016, at which time Gay began inquiring about the impact the purchase would have on the lots in Wellington Estates. In November 2016, discussions concerning the voluntary purchase of the buffer property ceased between the County and Gay.
In May 2017, the County hired an appraiser to appraise the buffer property for the first time. The County's appraiser met with Gay at the property on June 12, 2017, but part of the property needed to be bush-hogged to be accessible, so the appraiser informed Gay he would be back that weekend. Gay left the gate unlocked for the County's appraiser, who returned to the property on June 18, 2017 without Gay. The County received a copy of the appraisal on June 20, 2017 and forwarded it to Gay on June 29, 2017. The County's appraiser was unaware of any methane contamination on the buffer property, and his appraisal did not take into account any diminution in value caused by methane contamination. The County's appraiser valued the buffer property at $30,000.
Gay then retained his own expert and appraiser. Gay's environmental scientist opined that acquisition of the buffer property is an inadequate solution because there is a high probability that methane will continue to migrate past the buffer property onto Gay's remaining property. This expert further opined that, although methane migration could be abated with the installation of a "trench system," nothing the County could do would cure the methane issues on Gay's property.1 Unlike the County's appraiser, Gay's appraiser did not look solely at the buffer property. Specifically, Gay's appraiser valued the buffer property at $49,056, valued the remainder of Gay's property at $120,000, and stated that Gay suffered $1,786,929 in "consequential damages" based on his assumption that methane could migrate onto the remainder of Gay's property.
Case Nos. A19A1506 and A19A1190
When the parties were unable to voluntarily come to an agreement for the County to purchase the buffer property from Gay, the County petitioned to condemn the property. A special master panel was convened, with each party selecting an assessor for the panel pursuant to OCGA § 22-2-108.1. Gay moved to dismiss the petition, and the County filed various motions with the goal of excluding from consideration in the condemnation proceeding the effect the stigma of methane migration on the buffer would have on the remainder of Gay's property. The special master denied the requests of both parties, and both parties filed exceptions objecting to these rulings.2 Following a trial before the special master panel, Gay was awarded $49,000 for the value of the buffer property and $211,000 in "consequential damages." Both parties appealed the award to the superior court pursuant to OCGA § 22-2-112.3
After considering the exceptions filed by the parties, the superior court affirmed the special master's denial of Gay's motion to dismiss the petition and found the County's complaints about the evidence presented to the special master to be moot in light of the upcoming de novo jury trial. This Court granted the interlocutory applications of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pulte Home Co. v. Juanita M. Aycock Living Trust
...in granting or denying the interlocutory injunction is circumscribed by the applicable rules of law." Morgan County v. Gay , 352 Ga. App. 555, 572 (4), 834 S.E.2d 576 (2019) (citation omitted)."A trial court's discretion to decide whether to grant an interlocutory injunction is abused, and ......
-
Clay v. Douglasville-Douglas Cnty. Water & Sewer Auth.
...condemnation and the damages recoverable by a property owner for each cause of action are different." Morgan County v. Gay , 352 Ga. App. 555, 571 (3) (a) (2), 834 S.E.2d 576 (2019). And in Diversified Holdings , the Supreme Court seriously undermined whether an adverse impact on real estat......