Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 36-82-66 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 36-82-66 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 36-82-66

TITLE 36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Chapter 82 information not found

ARTICLE 3 REVENUE BONDS

36-82-66. Governmental liability for payment of bonds; recitation on bond.

Revenue bonds issued under this article shall not be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the governmental body issuing the same be subject to any pecuniary liability thereon. No holder or holders of any such bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the governmental body to pay any such bonds or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the governmental body; nor shall any such bonds constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the governmental body. Every bond issued under this article shall contain a recital setting forth the substance of this Code section.

(Ga. L. 1937, p. 761, § 7.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Constitutionality.

- See Lawson v. City of Moultrie, 194 Ga. 699, 22 S.E.2d 592 (1942).

Bonds not debts within constitutional limitations.

- Revenue anticipation bonds issued under the Revenue Bond Law (see O.C.G.A. Art. 3, Ch. 82, T. 36) do not subject the political subdivision issuing the bonds to any pecuniary liability thereon and are therefore not debts against such political subdivision within the meaning of the constitutional provision limiting such indebtedness. Fort Oglethorpe v. Catoosa County, 80 Ga. App. 188, 55 S.E.2d 753 (1949).

Contract between county and airport authority.

- Even though, under a contract between county and airport authority for use by the county of an expanded airport facility, the consideration to be paid by the county was not expressed in terms of a definite dollar amount, it was not an unconstitutional "new debt". The contract was a valid intergovernmental contract and the consideration represented the authority's lawful "revenue pledged to the payment of" the bonds. Clayton County Airport Auth. v. State, 265 Ga. 24, 453 S.E.2d 8 (1995).

County was authorized to pledge its taxing authority as security for its obligation to pay for the use of an expanded airport facility under a contract between the county and an airport authority and it was error to deny validation of the authority's revenue bonds on the basis of the county's pledge. Clayton County Airport Auth. v. State, 265 Ga. 24, 453 S.E.2d 8 (1995).

Under a contract between county and airport authority for use by the county of an expanded airport facility, although the county's consideration would not be paid directly to the authority, but paid to the custodian of the authority's sinking fund, the consideration did not lose the consideration's character as "revenue" for the authority and such payment scheme was not a reason to deny validation of the authority's revenue bonds. Clayton County Airport Auth. v. State, 265 Ga. 24, 453 S.E.2d 8 (1995).

Development authority not required to own or operate project.

- Proposed bond transaction did not violate Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. VI, Para. I and O.C.G.A. § 36-82-66 of the Revenue Bond Law merely because the development authority would not own or operate the proposed stadium; the development authority could use bond proceeds for paying all or part of the cost of any project (O.C.G.A. § 36-62-6(a)(13)), not only those projects the authority developed, and the authority could pay the costs of another government entity's project pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-62-9. Cottrell v. Atlanta Dev. Auth., 297 Ga. 1, 770 S.E.2d 616 (2015).

Cited in Miller v. Head, 186 Ga. 694, 198 S.E. 680 (1938); Stephenson v. State, 219 Ga. 652, 135 S.E.2d 380 (1964); Hospital Auth. v. Stewart, 226 Ga. 530, 175 S.E.2d 857 (1970).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 64 Am. Jur. 2d, Public Securities and Obligations, § 209 et seq.

ALR.

- Estoppel by recitals in municipal bonds as to lawfulness of issue, 86 A.L.R. 1057; 158 A.L.R. 938.

Subsequent issue of bonds by public body as impairing obligation to prior creditors, 87 A.L.R. 397.

Right of creditor of public body to full or pro rata payment when fund out of which obligation is payable is insufficient to pay all like obligations of equal dignity, 90 A.L.R. 717; 171 A.L.R. 1033.

Validity of municipal bond issue as against owners of property annexation of which to municipality became effective after date of election at which issue was approved by voters, 10 A.L.R.2d 559.

When limitations begin to run against actions on public securities or obligations to be paid out of special or particular fund, 50 A.L.R.2d 271.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 36-82-66

Total Results: 4  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Savage v. State of Georgia, 297 Ga. 627 (Ga. 2015).

Cited 28 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 29, 2015 | 774 S.E.2d 624

...thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the governmental body; nor shall any such bonds constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the governmental body. OCGA § 36-82-66. In line with the revenue bond laws, the Bond Resolution specifically recites that the stadium project bonds are limited obligations of the Authority, payable only from the pledged security, and the Trust Indenture similarly pro...
...S14A1874, slip op. at 15-16 (decided Mar. 16, 2015) (approving revenue bonds issued to fund a new stadium in the City of Atlanta for the Atlanta Falcons professional football team). Revenue bonds must be funded solely from “the revenue pledged to the payment thereof,” OCGA § 36-82-66, which is defined as “all revenues, income, 34 and earnings arising out of or in connection with the operation or ownership of the undertaking ....
Copy

Clayton Cnty. Airport Auth. v. State, 265 Ga. 24 (Ga. 1995).

Cited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 13, 1995 | 453 S.E.2d 8, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 549

...he validation of the Authority’s bonds, and were made parties to the proceeding. After conducting a hearing, the superior court entered an order denying validation of the bonds. From that order, the Authority and County bring this appeal. 1. OCGA § 36-82-66 provides, in relevant part, that revenue bonds “shall not be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof....
...It follows that, contrary to the superior court’s finding, the contractual consideration represents the Authority’s lawful “revenue pledged to the payment of’ its bonds rather than an unconstitutional “new debt” incurred by the County. 2. OCGA § 36-82-66 further provides, in relevant part, that the holders of the Authority’s bonds shall never “have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the governmental body to pay any such bonds or the interest thereon....
...t of or in connection with the operation or ownership of the” expanded airport facility. OCGA § 36-82-61 (3). As “revenue” for the Authority, the County’s consideration can be pledged by the Authority “to the payment” of its bonds. OCGA § 36-82-66....
Copy

Cottrell Et Al. v. Atlanta Dev. Auth. Et Al., 297 Ga. 1 (Ga. 2015).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 16, 2015 | 770 S.E.2d 616

...lies with the requirements of OCGA § 48-13-51 (a) (5) (B), and Cottrell’s argument to the contrary is without merit. 3. Cottrell asserts that the proposed bond transaction violates Art. IX, Sec. VI, Par. I of the Georgia Constitution and OCGA § 36-82-66 of the Revenue Bond Law because Invest Atlanta will not own or operate the NSP....
...nue “derived from the project.” See Georgia Constitution of 1983 Art. IX, Sec. VI, Par. I (“The obligation represented by revenue bonds shall be repayable only out of the revenue derived from the project”). See also OCGA § 36-82-66 (“Revenue bonds ....

Cottrell v. Atlanta Dev. Auth., D/B/A Invest Atlanta (Ga. 2015).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 16, 2015 | 770 S.E.2d 616

...48-13-51 (a) (5) (B), and Cottrell’s argument to the contrary is without merit. 14 3. Cottrell asserts that the proposed bond transaction violates Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. IX, Sec. VI, Par. I and OCGA § 36-82-66 of the Revenue Bond Law because Invest Atlanta will not own or operate the NSP....
...would not actually be revenue “derived from the project.” See Ga. Constitution of 1983, Art. IX, Sec. VI, Par. I (“The obligation represented by revenue bonds shall be repayable only out of the revenue derived from the project[.]”). See also OCGA § 36-82-66 (“Revenue bonds ....