presentment requirement in Georgia

2024Because a claim against a sheriff in his official capacity for the negligent use of a 21 covered motor vehicle is a claim against a county under OCGA § 36- 11-1, “presentment to the county governing authority of a claim to which OCGA § 36-11-1 applies satisfies the statute’s presentment requirement.”11 Mendez, 310 Ga. at 122 (3). 3.

2024Because a claim against a sheriff in his official capacity for the negligent use of a covered motor vehicle is a claim against a county under OCGA § 36- 11-1, “presentment to the county governing authority of a claim to which OCGA § 36-11-1 applies satisfies the statute’s presentment requirement.” 11 Mendez, 310 Ga. at 122 (3). 3.

2017See Burton, 202 Ga. App. at 678-679 .

2016See Burton, supra, 202 Ga. App. at 678 , 3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Leonard, as this Court must, I would find that Smalley had apparent authority to act as the County’s agent for the purpose of accepting Leonard’s ante litem notice and, therefore, I would find that Leonard complied with the presentment requirement of OCGA § 36-11-1.

2024OCGA § 36-11-1 provides: “All claims against counties must be presented within 12 months after they accrue or become payable or the same are barred, provided that minors or other persons laboring under disabilities shall be allowed 12 months after the removal of the disability to present their claims.” In Collington, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that “official-capacity claims against a county sheriff for a deputy’s allegedly negligent use of a county-owned vehicle are claims against the county itself, and thus, the presentment requirement of OCGA § 36-11-1 applies to such claims[.]”3 Howe

2024We thus reverse the trial court’s dismissal of 5 See, e.g., Moats, 349 Ga. App. at 818 (2), Davis, 344 Ga. App. at 532 (2). 6 The Supreme Court clarified in Collington that it was not deciding “whether presenting a claim to the Sheriff would also satisfy the presentment requirement of OCGA § 36-11-1.” 318 Ga. at 38 (2) (b) n. 11. 6 Morney’s claims against the sheriff in his official capacity and remand the case to the trial court to conduct further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

2023Indeed, we have held that claims against a sheriff are not sustainable without” proper presentment.10 This Court then declined to revisit Davis in Moats v. Mendez and held that “a claim for which the 6 344 Ga. App. 527 ( 810 SE2d 649 ) (2018). 7 See Mendez v. Moats, 310 Ga. 114, 122 (3) (a) ( 854 SE2d 816 ) (2020) (“Moats II”) (Nahmias, P. J. concurring) (“Until the Court of Appeals decided Davis . . . it appears that no case in the more than 150 years since the enactment of the statute that is now OCGA § 36-11-1 held that presentment of a plaintiff’s claim to the county governing authority wa

2019The county commission has [discretion] to cut the budget of an elected constitutional county officer [subject to judicial review].”). 20 See id.; Lawson v. Lincoln County, 292 Ga. App. 527, 529 ( 664 SE2d 900 ) (2008). 21 Croy, 301 Ga. at 385 (2). 6 of precedent, presentment to the county in this case is supported by the text of the statute and advances the purpose of OCGA § 36-11-1.22 The presentment requirement is purely a creature of statute that exists in derogation of common law.23 As such, the requirement should not be extended by analogy or approximation nor made more specific,24 no mat

2023Because the purpose of the presentment statute is to supply county officials with timely notice of demands against the county, and any claim against a sheriff could carry with it a financial impact to the county, presenting a claim to the county in this situation serves the purpose of the County Presentment Statute.18 15 See generally Lawson, 292 Ga. App. at 531-532 . 16 See Bd. of Commrs. of Dougherty County v. Saba, 278 Ga. 176, 177 (1) ( 598 SE2d 437 ) (2004). 17 See id. 18 We note here that although presentment to the county should satisfy the presentment requirement applicable to claims a

2019The county commission has [discretion] to cut the budget of an elected constitutional county officer [subject to judicial review].”). 20 See id.; Lawson v. Lincoln County, 292 Ga. App. 527, 529 ( 664 SE2d 900 ) (2008). 21 Croy, 301 Ga. at 385 (2). 6 of precedent, presentment to the county in this case is supported by the text of the statute and advances the purpose of OCGA § 36-11-1.22 The presentment requirement is purely a creature of statute that exists in derogation of common law.23 As such, the requirement should not be extended by analogy or approximation nor made more specific,24 no mat

2023Because the purpose of the presentment statute is to supply county officials with timely notice of demands against the county, and any claim against a sheriff could carry with it a financial impact to the county, presenting a claim to the county in this situation serves the purpose of the County Presentment Statute.18 15 See generally Lawson, 292 Ga. App. at 531-532 . 16 See Bd. of Commrs. of Dougherty County v. Saba, 278 Ga. 176, 177 (1) ( 598 SE2d 437 ) (2004). 17 See id. 18 We note here that although presentment to the county should satisfy the presentment requirement applicable to claims a

2023Because the purpose of the presentment statute is to supply county officials with timely notice of demands against the county, and any claim against a sheriff could carry with it a financial impact to the county, presenting a claim to the county in this situation serves the purpose of the County Presentment Statute.18 15 See generally Lawson, 292 Ga. App. at 531-532 . 16 See Bd. of Commrs. of Dougherty County v. Saba, 278 Ga. 176, 177 (1) ( 598 SE2d 437 ) (2004). 17 See id. 18 We note here that although presentment to the county should satisfy the presentment requirement applicable to claims a

2020Simply put, presentment to the county governing authority of a claim to which OCGA § 36-11-1 applies satisfies the statute’s presentment requirement. (a) Until the Court of Appeals decided Davis two years ago, it appears that no case in the more than 150 years since the enactment of the statute that is now OCGA § 36-11-1 held that presentment of Athens-Clarke County, 328 Ga. App. 903, 905 ( 763 SE2d 284 ) (2014).

2020Simply put, presentment to the county governing authority of a claim to which OCGA § 36-11-1 applies satisfies the statute’s presentment requirement. (a) Until the Court of Appeals decided Davis two years ago, it appears that no case in the more than 150 years since the enactment of the statute that is now OCGA § 36-11-1 held that presentment of Athens-Clarke County, 328 Ga. App. 903, 905 ( 763 SE2d 284 ) (2014).

2019To answer this question, the majority primarily relies on Davis v. Morrison,2 which stands for the proposition “that [the presentment requirement in] OCGA § 36-11-1 applies both to the counties and to the sheriffs, when sued in their official capacities.”3 Based on this principle, the Davis court held that a plaintiff was required to present his claim against a deputy to the sheriff, so the plaintiff’s presentment to the county was insufficient and fatal to his suit.4 In so holding, Davis relied on Columbia County v. Branton,5 which addressed claims against a sheriff in his official capacity a

2019To answer this question, the majority primarily relies on Davis v. Morrison,2 which stands for the proposition “that [the presentment requirement in] OCGA § 36-11-1 applies both to the counties and to the sheriffs, when sued in their official capacities.”3 Based on this principle, the Davis court held that a plaintiff was required to present his claim against a deputy to the sheriff, so the plaintiff’s presentment to the county was insufficient and fatal to his suit.4 In so holding, Davis relied on Columbia County v. Branton,5 which addressed claims against a sheriff in his official capacity a