O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
In all actions where a condemning authority exercises the power of eminent domain, the court having jurisdiction of a proceeding instituted by a condemnor to acquire real property by condemnation shall award the owner of any right or title to or interest in such real property such sum as will in the opinion of the court reimburse such owner for his or her reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees, actually incurred because of the condemnation proceedings, if: (1) The final judgment is that the condemning authority cannot acquire the real property by condemnation; or (2) The proceeding is abandoned by the condemning authority.
History
Code 1981, § 22-1-12, enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 5/HB 1313.
Annotations
Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 1/HB 1313, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: ‘‘This Act shall be known and may be cited as ‘The Landowner’s Bill of Rights and Private Property Protection Act.’ ’’ Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 25/HB 1313, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code section shall apply to those condemnation
proceedings filed on or after February 9, 2006, where title has not vested in the condemning authority unless constitutionally prohibited. Law reviews. - For article on 2006 enactment of this Code section, see 23 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 157 (2006). For annual survey on real property law, see 61 Mercer L. Rev. 301 (2009). For survey article on real property law, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 193 (2015). For annual survey of real property law, see 68 Mercer L. Rev. 231 (2016).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in City of Marietta v. Summerour, 302 Ga. 645, 807 S.E.2d 324
(2017); Morgan County v. Gay, 352 Ga. App. 555, 834 S.E.2d 576 (2019).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 26 Am. Jur. 2d, Eminent Domain, §§ 112 et seq., 182 et seq.
C.J.S. - 29A C.J.S., Eminent Domain, § 550 et seq.
Notes of Decisions
Dillard Land Investments, LLC v. Fulton Cnty., 761 S.E.2d 282 (Ga. 2014).
· cites it 20× “The Court of Appeals began its analysis by focusing on OCGA § 22-1-12, a statute enacted in 2006 as part of the Landowner’s Bill of Rights and Private Property Protection Act, Ga.”
City of Marietta v. Summerour, 807 S.E.2d 324 (Ga. 2017).
· cites it 6× “OCGA § 22-1-12 allows a property owner to recoup attorney fees and other costs if a condemnation is abandoned or determined to be unauthorized.”
Fulton Cnty. v. Dillard Land Investments, LLC, 744 S.E.2d 880 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 10× “OCGA § 22-1-12, which was amended in 2006 and made applicable to all condemnation proceedings filed on or after February 9, 2006, provides: In all actions where a condemning authority exercises the power of eminent domain, the court having jurisdiction of a proceeding instituted…”
Gramm v. City of Stockbridge, 676 S.E.2d 818 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “OCGA § 22-1-2 (c) (1) applies to condemnation actions filed on or after April 4, 2006 and OCGA § 22-1-12 applies to condemnation actions filed on or after February 9, 2006.”
Fincher Road Investments, Lllp v. City of Canton, 779 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 16× “In an order on pre-trial issues, the trial court determined that Fincher Road was entitled to attorney fees and costs of litigation under OCGA § 22-1-12 but was not entitled to any other compensation.”
Outfront Media, LLC v. City of Sandy Springs (Ga. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 13× “In two related orders, the trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on its dispossessory claim and denied Outfront’s cross-motion for summary judgment on that claim, granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on Outfront’s counterclaim for just and adequate…”
Dillard Land Investments, LLC v. Fulton Cnty. (Ga. 2014).
· cites it 18× “The Court of Appeals began its analysis by focusing on OCGA § 22-1-12, a statute enacted 4 in 2006 as part of the Landowner’s Bill of Rights and Private Property Protection Act, Ga.”
City of Marietta v. Summerour (Ga. 2017).
· cites it 6× “OCGA § 22-1-12 allows a property owner to recoup attorney fees and other costs if a condemnation is abandoned or determined to be unauthorized.”
Morgan Cnty., Georgia v. Jimmy A. Gay (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “A19A1506, Gay contends the superior court erred in failing to dismiss the County’s condemnation petition because the condemnation does not fulfil a public necessity, the County acted in bad faith, and the County failed to comply with OCGA § 22-1-9. He also contends the superior…”
Fulton Cnty., Georgia v. Dillard Land Investments LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “OCGA § 22-1-12, which was amended in 2006 and made applicable to all condemnation proceedings filed on or after February 9, 2006, provides: 2 In all actions where a condemning authority exercises the power of eminent domain, the court having jurisdiction of a proceeding…”
Leslie Guadelupe Candelaria Torres v. City of Jonesboro (Ga. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “The condemnees moved for attorney fees and costs under OCGA § 22-1-12 (2), which provides: In all actions where a condemning authority exercises the power of eminent domain, the court having jurisdiction of a proceeding instituted by a condemnor to acquire real property by…”
Dep't of Transp. v. Star Land Holdings, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “502 ( 779 SE2d 717 ) (2015) (physical precedent only) 4 (applying OCGA § 22-1-12, a provision of the Act, to a declaration-of-taking condemnation under OCGA § 32-3-6).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.