O.C.G.A. § 32-3-6 (2019)

Annotations

Law reviews. - For annual survey on real property law, see 61 Mercer L. Rev. 301 (2009).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Condemnor must prove just and adequate compensation. - Condemnor has the burden of proving just and adequate compensation in condemnation cases, but once the condemnor has established a prima facie case, the burden is on the condemnee to produce overcoming evidence when the condemnor asserts greater value or damage. West v. DOT, 176 Ga. App. 806, 338 S.E.2d 45 (1985).

Condemnor must show declaration of taking method was necessary. - City’s declaration of taking violated O.C.G.A. § 32-3-6(b)(6) and, consequently, could not vest title in the city; the declaration of taking method could not have been necessary or essential, as required by the statute, when the city council also contemplated and specifically authorized use of an alternative method.

City of Atlanta v. Yusen Air & Sea Serv. Holdings Inc., 263 Ga. App. 82, 587 S.E.2d 230 (2003). Easement not adequately described. - When the Department of Transportation filed a declaration of taking pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 32-3-1 et seq., which included the taking of a temporary work easement to be used in the demolition of a building on condemned property, the department did not adequately describe the easement as the department’s plat attached to the department’s declaration did not describe the easement, and there was no description of the easement’s width nor any limitation regarding a pathway which had to be used when traversing land not condemned; the issue was not rendered moot by the fact that the condemnees did not obtain a stay pending appeal and the work was completed during the appeal’s pendency because O.C.G.A. § 32-3-17.1 authorized a trial court to order a condemnor to amend a defective declaration of taking. Ga. 400 Indus. Park, Inc. v. DOT, 274 Ga. App. 153, 616 S.E.2d 903 (2005). Affidavit as to just compensation not an admission of fact. - Department of Transportation’s affidavit filed pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of O.C.G.A. § 32-3-6 did not constitute an admission of fact which would be admissible against the Department of Transportation in the condemnee’s appeal pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 32-3-14. Aiken v. Department of Transp., 171 Ga. App. 154, 319 S.E.2d 58 (1984). Failure to allow impeachment of state appraiser warrants new trial. - Condemnees were entitled to a new trial

in a Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) condemnation proceeding; the trial court erred in refusing to allow impeachment of the DOT expert with the disparity between the expert’s pretrial estimate of just compensation ( JC) and the higher estimate the expert gave at trial as impeachment might have convinced the jury to award JC closer to the higher JC estimate of the condemnees’ expert. Steele v. DOT, 295 Ga. App. 244, 671 S.E.2d 275 (2008). Condemnor not bound by original estimate upon condemnee’s appeal. - If a condemnee is dissatisfied with the compensation originally estimated by the condemnor and elects to appeal that issue to a jury, the condemnor is not bound by the condemnor’s original estimate but can present evidence de novo as to fair market value and consequential damages. Morrison v. DOT, 166 Ga. App. 144, 303 S.E.2d 501 (1983); Aiken v. Department of Transp., 171 Ga. App. 154, 319 S.E.2d 58 (1984). Right to attorney fees in condemnation proceeding. - Party in condemnation proceeding acquired no vested right in attorney fees awarded to the attorney through the judgment of the trial court. DOT v. Kendricks, 244 Ga. 613, 261 S.E.2d 391 (1979). Cited in DOT v. Lurie, 138 Ga. App. 9, 225 S.E.2d 687 (1976); Coffee v. Atkinson County, 236 Ga. 248, 223 S.E.2d 648 (1976); Morgan v. Department of Transp., 239 Ga. 560, 238 S.E.2d 95 (1977); DOT v. Worley, 150 Ga. App. 768, 258 S.E.2d 595 (1979); DOT v. Harrison, 154 Ga. App. 118, 267 S.E.2d 651 (1980); DOT v. Rudeseal, 156 Ga. App. 712, 276 S.E.2d 52 (1980).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Right to interest in condemnation proceeding. - Right to receive interest as part of just and adequate compensation vests on date of taking, which is the day

the declaration of taking, accompanied by the payment of just and adequate compensation, is filed in a superior court. 1980 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 80-100.