Teague v. City of Canton
| Decision Date | 03 February 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. S96A1379,S96A1379 |
| Parties | , 97 FCDR 360 TEAGUE v. CITY OF CANTON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Michael J. Kramer, Gary O. Walker, Marietta, for Charles Teague.
Eugene Benson Chambers, Jr., Canton, William G. Hasty, Jr., Patricia Bennett Ball, William G. Hasty, Jr., P.C., Canton, for City of Canton.
Appellant Charles Teague and others were the developers of a subdivision called "Governor's Walk" in the City of Canton ("City"). Teague also owns at least one of the lots in the subdivision. In 1995, the City filed condemnation proceedings to secure a sanitary sewer easement across a lot in Governor's Walk owned by Teague in order that the developer of an adjoining subdivision might construct a sewer line connecting the new subdivision's sewer system with the existing sanitary sewer system serving Governor's Walk which, in turn, is connected to the City's sewer system. 1 In a verified complaint for injunctive relief, Teague sought to restrain the city and its agents from building the sewer line across his lot and tapping into the existing sewer line, alleging that he, not the City, owned the sanitary sewer system which serves Governor's Walk. Teague asserted that the City's grant of permission to the adjoining developer to tap into the existing sewer system purportedly owned by Teague constituted an unconstitutional taking of property. Three days after Teague filed his complaint, the trial court granted an interlocutory injunction against the city.
Thereafter, the trial court held a hearing which culminated in the dissolution of the injunction after the trial court ruled that the City, and not Teague, owned the sanitary sewer line which serves Governor's Walk. After opining that both the developers and the City had engaged in "shoddy and lax practices," the trial court found that Teague and his co-developers had made an express offer of dedication of the subdivision's streets and sewer system and that the City had accepted formal dedication of the streets, but had declined expressly to accept the dedication of the sewer system which the City believed to be substandard. The trial court went on to find that the City, by its actions, had impliedly accepted the offer of dedication of the sewer system. In his sole enumeration of error, Teague asserts that the trial court erred when it dissolved the interlocutory injunction on the basis of its finding that the city had impliedly accepted the dedication of the sewer system. 2
1. The grant or denial of injunctive relief is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and appellate review of the trial court's decision is limited to a determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Chicagoland Vending v. Parkside Ctr., Ltd., 265 Ga. 318, 454 S.E.2d 456 (1995).
2. Smith v. State of Georgia, 248 Ga. 154, 158, 282 S.E.2d 76 (1981). The trial court found that the owner/developer of Governor's Walk made an express offer of dedication when the land was subdivided into lots and a signed deed and plat showing the lots with designated streets and water and sewer systems were recorded in January 1988. Id. Because the quit-claim deed recorded by the owner in December 1991 conveyed to the City only the grantor's interest in the platted roadways and their right of way, 3 the trial court determined that the City had expressly accepted the offer of dedication as to the streets, and had expressly declined to accept dedication of the water and sewer system. 4
3. After recognizing that the City had expressly declined Teague's offer of dedication of the sewer system, the trial court concluded that the City had impliedly accepted the offer of dedication. Where an owner of land makes an express offer of dedication of a particular portion of property for use by the public, the acceptance of that offer may be shown by any act of the municipality recognizing the existence of the public way as a public way and treating it as property of the city. Young v. Sweetbriar, Inc., 222 Ga. 262(1), 149 S.E.2d 474 (1966). While working or maintaining the property by the legally constituted authority is the usual method of manifesting acceptance by the governmental entity, it is the government's exercise of dominion and control of the subject of the express offer of dedication which indicates acceptance of the dedication. Adams v. Richmond County, 193 Ga. 42, 48, 17 S.E.2d 184 (1941); Hillside Cotton Mills v. Ellis, 23 Ga.App. 45(2), 97 S.E. 459 (1918...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rouse v. City of Atlanta
...own." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kaplan , supra, 286 Ga. at 561 ( 3 ) , 690 S.E.2d 395 . See also Teague v. City of Canton , 267 Ga. 679, 681 (3), 482 S.E.2d 237 (1997) ("While working or maintaining the property by the legally constituted authority is the usual method of manifesti......
-
Braley v. City Of Forest Park
...either express or implied, by the appropriate public authorities or the general public. (Cits.)’ [Cit.]” Teague v. City of Canton, 267 Ga. 679, 680(2), 482 S.E.2d 237 (1997). No deed or other public record was introduced that made an express dedication. Hale v. City of Statham, 269 Ga. 817,......
-
Kaplan v. City of Sandy Springs
...of these acts support an inference that the county exercised dominion and control over the drainage pipe. See Teague v. City of Canton, 267 Ga. 679, 681(3), 482 S.E.2d 237 (1997) (it is the government's exercise of dominion and control of the property which indicates acceptance of the dedic......
-
City of Norcross v. Gwinnett Cnty.
...414 S.E.2d 214 (1992) (applying presumption that dedication of road to county transferred an easement).7 See Teague v. City of Canton , 267 Ga. 679, 680 (2), 482 S.E.2d 237 (1997) ("To prove a dedication of land to public use, there must be an offer, either express or implied, by the owner ......
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...affirmed the trial judge's grant of summary judgment to the municipality and denial of injunctive relief to plaintiffs. Id. 79. 267 Ga. 679, 482 S.E.2d 237 (1997). 80. Id. at 679, 482 S.E.2d at 237. Plaintiff had developed the subdivision and still owned a lot there. He sought to prevent th......