O.C.G.A. § 22-2-103 (2019)
Appointment of special master generally
The special master provided for in this article shall be appointed by the judge or judges of the superior courts of each judicial circuit and shall discharge the duties provided for in this article. Nothing contained in this article shall be construed as limiting the number of special masters for the circuit, and any judge of the superior court may appoint a special master for any particular case or cases. The special master so appointed must be a competent attorney at law, be of good standing in his profession, and have at least three years’ experience in the practice of law. His relation and accountability to the court shall be that of an auditor or master in the general practice existing in this state. He shall hold office at the pleasure of the judge and shall be removable at any time with or without cause. Each special master shall take and file in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county in which the property or interest to be condemned is situated, along with the order of his appointment, an oath or affidavit substantially in the form prescribed in Code Section 22-2-105.
History
Ga. L. 1957, p. 387, § 6; Ga. L. 1984, p. 682, § 1.
Annotations
Cross references. - Auditors generally, T. 9, C. 7. Law reviews. - For article, ‘‘The New
Special Master Rule - Uniform Superior Court Rule 46: Life Jackets for the Courts in the Perfect Storm,’’ see 15 (No. 4) Ga. St. B.J. 20 (2009).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Special master is officer of court. - The original arbiter is no longer merely a person especially equipped to determine value; the arbiter is a competent attorney under oath especially appointed by the court. The arbiter is, accordingly, an arm of the court, and the arbiter’s decision is judicial or at least quasi-judicial. Johnson v. Fulton County, 103 Ga. App. 873, 121 S.E.2d 54 (1961). A special master is a judicial officer within contemplation of the immunity doctrine. West End Whses., Inc. v. Dunlap, 141 Ga. App. 333, 233 S.E.2d 284 (1977). Rulings of neither auditor nor special master are immediately final. Wiggins v. City of Macon, 120 Ga. App. 197, 169 S.E.2d 667 (1969); Sweat v. Georgia Power Co., 235 Ga. 281, 219 S.E.2d 384 (1975). Special master’s rulings and findings may be excepted to in trial court and disposed of in like manner before any award, which is the end product of the proceeding, is offered to the court and a
judgment of taking is entered up based on the award. Wiggins v. City of Macon, 120 Ga. App. 197, 169 S.E.2d 667 (1969). This section obviously contemplates the possibility of exceptions and an appeal thereon to the superior court. Sweat v. Georgia Power Co., 235 Ga. 281, 219 S.E.2d 384 (1975). Challenge to special masters award. - Trial court properly refused to dismiss a landowner’s appeal on grounds that it failed to express dissatisfaction with the compensation awarded by the special master, as it provided the utility with notice that the landowner was objecting to the valuation given on the property; moreover, in light of the interest that the utility acquired in the property, and the purposes for which it intended to use that property, consequential damages potentially represented a significant portion of the compensation the landowner could recover. Ga. Power Co. v. Stowers, 282 Ga. App. 695, 639 S.E.2d 605 (2006). Special master not obligated to re-
port findings and conclusions. - Although the relationship and accountability of a special master to the court was that of an auditor, a special master was not obligated by Ga. L. 1957, p. 387, § 6 (see O.C.G.A. § 22-2-103) to render a report in the manner prescribed in former Code 1933, § 10-203 (see O.C.G.A. § 9-7-8) containing the special master’s findings and conclusions upon the law and the facts. Sweat v. Georgia Power Co., 235 Ga. 281, 219 S.E.2d 384 (1975). Recommittal of the action to a new special master was proper since the
trial court found that the special master failed to apply the Georgia law relating to condemnation proceedings and found the award of the special master to be ‘‘incomplete’’ based on the failure of the special master to determine the just and adequate compensation of the property or interest taken. McBroom v. Georgia Power Co., 192 Ga. App. 81, 383 S.E.2d 634 (1989). Cited in Leach v. Georgia Power Co., 228 Ga. 16, 183 S.E.2d 755 (1971); Zuber Lumber Co. v. City of Atlanta, 237 Ga. 358, 227 S.E.2d 362 (1976).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL District attorney should not serve as special master in a condemnation case. 1970 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U70-39.