O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-36-39 (2019)

Filing of petition for declaratory judgment to determine validity of annexation; judicial review

✓ 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) Within 30 days of the effective date of the ordinance annexing land to the municipal corporation, any resident elector of the area so annexed or of the municipal corporation or any property owner of such area or of the municipal corporation may bring a petition for declaratory judgment, in the superior court of the county of the legal situs of the annexing municipal corporation, to determine the validity, in accordance with this article, of the application and the municipal corporation’s action thereon. Whenever such a petition is filed, the municipal governing body shall file with the court the record of their official actions in regard to such application and a certified copy of the annexing ordinance. (b) The judgment of the court on any such petition may declare the annexation ordinance null and void upon a finding that the application and the municipal corporation’s action thereon are not in substantial compliance with this article. Upon a finding that procedural defects or defects in the plan for service to the annexed area exist, the court, where possible, shall frame a judgment to perfect such defect and uphold the ordinance.

(c) Actions provided for in this Code section shall be in accordance with Chapter 4 of Title 9. (d) Any aggrieved party may obtain a review of a final judgment under this Code section as is provided by law in other cases.

History

Ga. L. 1966, p. 409, § 9; Code 1981, § 36-36-29; Code 1981, § 36-36-39, as redesignated by Ga. L. 1992, p. 2592, § 3.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 1992, p. 2592, § 3, effective July 1, 1992, renumbered former Code Section 36-36-29 as present Code Section 36-36-39.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Boards of education do not come within category of persons barred from attacking ordinances after 30 days. Plantation Pipe Line Co. v. City of Bremen, 227 Ga. 1, 178 S.E.2d 868 (1970); City of Marietta v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 237 Ga. 518, 228 S.E.2d 894 (1976). Annexations properly invalidated. - Judgment invalidating the City of Atlanta’s attempted annexation of five areas was affirmed because the trial court cor-

rectly held that the annexations were invalid since at the time the annexations would have become effective, the areas in question were already part of the newly incorporated City of South Fulton and, thus, ineligible for annexation by Atlanta. City of Atlanta v. Mays, 301 Ga. 367, 801 S.E.2d 1 (2017). Cited in City of Lovejoy v. Clayton County, 335 Ga. App. 881, 783 S.E.2d 395 (2016).

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. - 26 C.J.S., Declaratory Judgments, §§ 99, 100. ALR. - Proper remedy or procedure for

attacking legality of proceedings annexing territory to municipal corporation, 18 A.L.R.2d 1255.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2023 · leading case: City of Atlanta v. Mays, 801 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Atlanta v. Mays, 801 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “5 See OCGA § 36-36-39 (explaining that any resident elector or any property owner in the area may bring a petition for declaratory judgment to challenge an annexation).”

City of Smyrna v. Adams, 565 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). “The city further contends that the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with a declaratory judgment action; in finding that the landowners had standing to challenge the 1985 annexation of South Cobb Drive; in shifting the burden of proof to the city; and in…”

City of Lovejoy Et Al. v. Clayton Cnty. Et Al., 783 S.E.2d 395 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “The city argues that even if the annexation ordinance is procedurally defective, the trial court’s order is erroneous because it does not comply with OCGA § 36-36-39 (b)’s requirement that the court frame its judgment to uphold the ordinance.”

City of Tucker v. City of Clarkston (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “For example, OCGA § 36-36-39, the declaratory judgment statute under which Appellant seeks relief, specifically provides that a court “where possible, shall frame a judgment to perfect [a procedural defect or defect in the plan for service to annexed areas] and uphold the…”

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.