O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 32-3-7 (2019)

Deposit of estimated compensation; vesting of title in condemning authority; protection of due process rights

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Upon the filing of the declaration of taking and the deposit into court, which deposit shall be made at the time the declaration of taking is filed to the use of the persons entitled thereto, of the sum of money estimated in the declaration by the condemning authority to be just compensation, title to the property in fee simple absolute or such lesser interest as is specified in the declaration shall vest in the condemnor; the land shall be deemed to be condemned and taken for the use of the condemnor; and the right to just compensation for the same shall vest in the persons entitled thereto.

(b) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed so as to deprive the owner of the property or interest of due process of law as guaranteed by the Constitutions of Georgia and of the United States.

History

Code 1933, § 95A-605, enacted by Ga. L. 1973, p. 947, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 32.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Effect of petition. - Petition is not mere pleading but instrument which passes title when filed and just and adequate compensation is paid into the court under O.C.G.A. § 32-3-7. Dorsey v. DOT, 248 Ga. 34, 279 S.E.2d 707 (1981). Standing. - Temporary administratrix, who was also the wife of the decedent landowner, had standing as a party to the action for the recovery of just compensation for land taken by the Department of Transportation in a condemnation proceeding. DOT v. Foster, 262 Ga. App. 524, 586 S.E.2d 64 (2003). Open Records Law. - ‘‘Property has been acquired’’ for purposes of the Open Records Law, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., exemption only after condemnation proceedings, including any litigation, have been completed. Black v. Georgia DOT, 262 Ga. 342, 417 S.E.2d 655 (1992). Effect of omission of commencement date. - Department of Transportation’s omission of the commencement date of the temporary construction easement the department sought to condemn did not render the declaration of taking invalid; as a matter of law, the commencement date for the temporary construction easement is the date of the taking. Habersham Downs Homeowners’ Ass’n v. DOT, 212 Ga. App. 686, 442 S.E.2d 868 (1994). Nonconforming declaration of taking cannot vest title in condemnor. - Declaration of taking which does not con-

form to the dictates of O.C.G.A. § 32-3-7 cannot vest title to the land in the condemnor. Dorsey v. DOT, 248 Ga. 34, 279 S.E.2d 707 (1981). Vesting of title by amended declaration. - Amended declaration can only vest title in condemnor at time of amendment, and does not relate vesting back to the time of the original declaration. Dorsey v. DOT, 248 Ga. 34, 279 S.E.2d 707 (1981). Amendment to justification of just and adequate compensation. - Along with amendment to declaration, amendment to justification of just and adequate compensation should be filed by condemnor. Dorsey v. DOT, 248 Ga. 34, 279 S.E.2d 707 (1981). Date of taking for determining land value or consequential damages. - For the purpose of determining the value of the land taken or consequential damages to land not taken, the condemnee shall have the right to elect whether the date of taking is the date of the filing of the original declaration of taking or the date of the filing of the amendment. Dorsey v. DOT, 248 Ga. 34, 279 S.E.2d 707 (1981). Condemnee has no vested right in attorney fees granted by court. - Party in condemnation proceeding acquired no vested right in the attorney fees awarded to the party through the judgment of the trial court. DOT v. Kendricks, 244 Ga. 613, 261 S.E.2d 391 (1979).

Trial court does not have authority, under O.C.G.A. § 32-3-7, to require payment of reasonable and necessary attorney fees and expenses of litigation for proceedings before an appellate court of this state. DOT v. Franco’s Pizza & Delicatessen, Inc., 200 Ga. App. 723, 409 S.E.2d 281, cert. denied, 200 Ga. App. 895, 409 S.E.2d 281 (1991), overruled on other grounds, 264 Ga. 393, 444 S.E.2d 734 (1994). Condemnation not required when no prior right of access. - Condemnor creating a limited access highway need not condemn a purported ‘‘right of access’’ where none has previously existed. DOT v. Hardin, 231 Ga. 359, 201 S.E.2d 441

(1973) (decided under former Ga. L. 1955, p. 559). 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); Blonder v. Department of Transp., 156 Ga. App. 711, 275 S.E.2d 762 (1980); DOT v. Delta Mach. Prods. Co., 162 Ga. App. 252, 291 S.E.2d 104 (1982); Stephens v. Department of Transp., 170 Ga. App. 784, 318 S.E.2d 167 (1984).

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.

Surplus property, not to be placed in court registry. - Legislature intended that only money, and not surplus property, be placed into the court registry for satisfaction of any judgment resulting from a condemnation action. 1992 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 92-8.

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Constitutionality of statute or ordinance denying right of property own-

ers to defeat a proposed street improvement by protest, 52 A.L.R. 883.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2021 · leading case: Shiv Aban, Inc. v. Georgia Dep't of Transp., 784 S.E.2d 134 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
Dep't of Transp. v. Mixon, 864 S.E.2d 67 (Ga. 2021). · cites it 4× “”) (emphasis added); OCGA § 32-3-7 (a) (title to condemned property vests in the condemnor “[u]pon the filing of the declaration of taking and the deposit into court, which deposit shall be made at the time the declaration of taking is filed to the use of the persons entitled…”
Bryde Et Al. v. City of Atlanta., 828 S.E.2d 122 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “Upon the City's motion, the trial court dismissed the notice of appeal as untimely under OCGA § 32-3-14, and entered final judgment for the Brydes in the amount paid into the court registry pursuant to OCGA § 32-3-7. The Brydes appeal, asserting that their notice of appeal was…”
Shiv Aban, Inc. v. Georgia Dep't of Transp., 784 S.E.2d 134 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “See OCGA §§ 32-3-7 (a), 32-3-13 (a). The property owner can, however, obtain a de novo determination [of the property’s value] by a jury after the fact.”
Fincher Road Investments, Lllp v. City of Canton, 779 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “” 21 Indeed, under OCGA § 32-3-7, [u]pon the filing of the declaration of taking and the deposit into court, which deposit shall be made at the time the declaration of taking is filed to the use of the persons entitled thereto, of the sum of money estimated in the declaration by…”
McMeans v. Dep't of Transp., 734 S.E.2d 412 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “at 417 (an answer can be considered a notice of appeal under OCGA § 32-3-7 when it expresses dissatisfaction with the compensation proposed for the taking).”
Postell v. Bd. of Commissioners, 732 S.E.2d 303 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “And OCGA § 32-3-7 (a) provides: Upon the filing of the declaration of taking and the deposit into court, which deposit shall be made at the time the declaration of taking is filed to the use of the persons entitled thereto, of the sum of money estimated in the *899 declaration…”
Crandall Postell v. Bd. of Commissioners Of (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “And OCGA § 32-3-7 (a) provides: 2 Upon the filing of the declaration of taking and the deposit into court, which deposit shall be made at the time the declaration of taking is filed to the use of the persons entitled thereto, of the sum of money estimated in the declaration by…”
Brian McMeans v. Dep't of Transp. (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “at 417 (an answer can be considered a notice of appeal under OCGA § 32-3-7 when it expresses dissatisfaction with the compensation proposed for the taking).”
Eagle's Landing Christian Church, Inc. v. Henry Cnty., 708 S.E.2d 23 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “4 Applicable to this case, OCGA § 32-3-14 states specifically: If the owner, or any of the owners, or any person having a claim against or interest in the property is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation as estimated in the declaration of taking and deposited in court,…”
Windsor v. City of Atlanta, 695 S.E.2d 576 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 2× “See OCGA §§ 32-3-7 (a), 32-3-13 (a). The property owner can, however, obtain a de novo determination by a jury after the fact.”
Cedartown North P'ship LLC v. Georgia Dep't of Transp., 673 S.E.2d 562 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “On September 1, 2006, Cedartown’s registered agent for service of process, E. Byron Slaughter, was personally served with the petitions and declarations.”
Steele v. Dep't of Transp., 671 S.E.2d 275 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to OCGA § 32-3-7, that amount was therefore deposited into the court and the land was condemned.”
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.