Sadtler v. City of Atlanta
| Decision Date | 08 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 30490,30490 |
| Citation | 223 S.E.2d 819,236 Ga. 396 |
| Parties | A. R. SADTLER et al. v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Charles L. Weltner, Atlanta, for appellants.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Bruce M. Edenfield, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles M. Lokey, Atlanta, for appellees.
This appeal poses one issue for decision: whether the Georgia Department of Transportation, as grantee from the City of Attlanta of lands condemned by the City of Atlanta, owns fee simple title to the lands, or whether, because of the failure to use the lands for the purpose for which they were condemned, title reverted to the original condemnees, their heirs, or assigns.
The City acquired the lands in question in 1971 through eminent domain proceedings and then transferred them to the predecessor of what is now the Georgia Department of Transportation. The lands were acquired for the purpose of constructing I-485, a part of the Georgia Interstate Highway System. In 1974 and 1975 actions were taken by the Georgia Department of Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation to remove I-485 from the Georgia Interstate Highway System. The effect of these actions was to declare that portion of the I-485 property lying north of Ponce de Leon Avenue to be surplus property. Appellants then filed their complaint contending that since the purpose and use for which the property had been originally condemned existed no longer, the title to the condemned lands reverted to the original condemnees.
The trial judge dismissed the City as a party and rendered summary judgment in favor of the Georgia Department of Transportation. Appellants have come here for review of that adverse judgment.
Appellants rely primarily on a 1954 decision of this court which found a reversionary interest in condemned land. See City of Atlanta v. Fulton County, 210 Ga. 784, 82 S.E.2d 850 (1954). However, that case cannot be controlling here, because in that case the property was condemned in 1874 when a condemning body could only acquire an easement in property for public purposes, not a fee simple title. See State Highway Department v. Hendrix, 215 Ga. 821, 113 S.E.2d 761 (1960).
Legislation enacted in 1955 (Ga.L.1955, pp. 559, 562) provided that specified condemning bodies could acquire property for limited-access facilities by using any one of the various methods of condemnation, and that all 'real property rights acquired under the provisions of this Act shall be in fee simple.' Code Ann. § 95-1704a, now superseded by the Code of Public Transportation.
In Marist Society of Georgia v. City of Atlanta, 212 Ga. 115, 119, 90 S.E.2d 564, 567 (1955) this court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cobb County v. Crew
...condemned Tract 4, it acquired an easement, not fee simple title. Code 1895, § 4683 (now OCGA § 22-2-85). Compare Sadtler v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 396, 223 S.E.2d 819 (1976) with City of Atlanta v. Fulton County, 210 Ga. 784, 785(3), 82 S.E.2d 850 (1954). GREC's interest reverted to Coll......
-
Harwell v. Georgia Power Co., 58893
...hereafter be given said right or power of eminent domain." (Emphasis supplied.) As held by the Supreme Court in Sadtler v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 396, 398, 223 S.E.2d 819, "the Special Master Act (Code Ann. Ch. 36-6A, supra.) enacted in 1957 provides that a condemning body may petition th......
-
Darling Int'l, Inc. v. Carter
...to the original owners.” Galloway v. Bd. of Commrs. of Banks County, 246 Ga. 472, 473, 271 S.E.2d 784 (1980), citing Sadtler v. Atlanta, 236 Ga. 396, 223 S.E.2d 819 (1976). Accordingly, Darling asserts the Carter heirs' interests did not arise until 2010 and thus were nonexistent at the tim......
-
Knight v. Department of Transp.
...claims an automatic reverter to the former landowner, we have decided otherwise in an earlier I-485 decision, Sadtler v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 396, 223 S.E.2d 819 (1976). See also Department of Transportation v. Knight, supra. The Department is entitled to put the land to other uses. Cod......