O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-82-75 (2019)

Duty of district attorney or Attorney General to file petition; order to show cause; service of petition and order; answer

✓ 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

Within 20 days from the date of service of the notice provided for in Code Section 36-82-74, the district attorney or the Attorney General shall prepare and file, in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county issuing the bonds or of the county in which the governmental body is located, a petition directed to the superior court of such county in the name of the state and against the governmental body desiring to issue the revenue bonds. The petition shall set forth service of the notice, the name of the governmental body seeking to issue the bonds, the amount of bonds to be issued, for what purpose the bonds are to be issued, what interest they are to bear, how much principal and interest is to be paid annually, when the bonds are to be paid in full, and the security to be pledged to the payment of the bonds; provided, however, the petition may provide for a maximum interest rate and a maximum

annual principal and interest payment. The district attorney or the Attorney General shall obtain from the judge of the court an order requiring the governmental body by its proper officers to show cause, at such time and place, either in term or chambers, within 20 days from the filing of the petition, as the judge may direct, why the bonds and the security for the payment thereof should not be confirmed and validated. The petition and order shall be served in the manner now provided by law for the service of petitions upon counties, governmental bodies, or political subdivisions. The officers of the governmental body shall make sworn answers to the petition within the time prescribed.

History

Ga. L. 1937, p. 761, § 11; Ga. L. 1991, p. 1103, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality. - See Lawson v. City of Moultrie, 194 Ga. 699, 22 S.E.2d 592 (1942). Effect of failure of solicitor general (now district attorney) to file petition. - When the solicitor general (now district attorney), or the Attorney General, fails to file a validation petition within the 20-day period, any petition filed, without a prior order of court directing such filing, is a nullity. State v. Smallwood, 103 Ga. App. 400, 119 S.E.2d 297 (1961). Petition sets forth interest rate with reasonable specificity under the circumstances when the petition states the interest rate ‘‘will not exceed 10 3/4%’’ and there was testimony at the validation hearing that the interest rate will be set at the time of closing. Alexander v. Macon-Bibb County Urban Dev. Auth. & Urban Properties #47, 257 Ga. 181, 357 S.E.2d 62 (1987). Citizens of municipality have right to object to validation of revenue bonds on grounds that project is unreasonable or unsound. Miller v. State, 83 Ga. App. 135, 62 S.E.2d 921 (1951). State a necessary party in intervention in validation proceeding. - On appeal by intervening taxpayers and citi-

zens from a judgment of the superior court overruling their objections and validating the bonds, the state is a necessary and indispensable party, and, it appearing that the state had not been made a party to the bill of exceptions or served with a copy of the bill of exceptions, the writ of error is properly dismissed. Darby v. City of Vidalia, 75 Ga. App. 804, 44 S.E.2d 454 (1947). Burden of making out case is on state. - State is a necessary and indispensable party to an action to require validation of water and sewer revenue anticipation bonds as the express provisions of this section require that the action be brought in its name. The burden of making out the state’s case for the validation of the revenue anticipation bonds was upon the state. Darby v. City of Vidalia, 75 Ga. App. 804, 44 S.E.2d 454 (1947). Cited in Gibbs v. City of Social Circle, 191 Ga. 422, 12 S.E.2d 335 (1940); Dade County v. State, 77 Ga. App. 139, 48 S.E.2d 144 (1948); Rich v. State, 237 Ga. 291, 227 S.E.2d 761 (1976); Nations v. Downtown Dev. Auth., 255 Ga. 324, 338 S.E.2d 240 (1985); Hay v. Newton County, 246 Ga. App. 44, 538 S.E.2d 181 (2000); Citizens for Ethics in Gov’t, LLC v. Atlanta Dev. Auth., 303 Ga. App. 724, 694 S.E.2d 680 (2010).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 64 Am. Jur. 2d, Public Securities and Obligations, § 353 et seq.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: Savage v. State of Georgia, 774 S.E.2d 624 (Ga. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Savage v. State of Georgia, 774 S.E.2d 624 (Ga. 2015). · cites it 4× “*646 (b) Pellegrino argues next that the Authority did not fulfill its duty under OCGA § 36-82-75 because it failed to show why the stadium project bonds should not be validated.”
Nations v. Downtown Dev. Auth., 338 S.E.2d 240 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 36-82-75. Any citizen of Georgia who is a resident of the issuing governmental body may become a party to the proceedings.”
Sherman v. City of Atlanta, 744 S.E.2d 689 (Ga. 2013). · cites it 2× “And because Appellants lacked standing to become parties in the trial court, they also lack standing to appeal the trial court’s judgment. See id. (“Only a party to the proceedings at the time the judgment appealed from is rendered may appeal from such judgment.”
Alexander v. MacOn-bibb Cnty. Urban Dev. Auth. & Urban Props. 47, 357 S.E.2d 62 (Ga. 1987). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 36-82-75 requires the State to file a petition against the governmental body desiring to issue the bonds which states, inter alia, "the interest [the bonds] are to bear, how much principal and interest is to be paid annually .”
Citizens for Ethics in Gov't, LLC v. Atlanta Dev. Auth., 694 S.E.2d 680 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “On October 29, 2008, the district attorney, on behalf of the State of Georgia, filed a Petition and Complaint for Bond Validation pursuant to OCGA § 36-82-75 in each of the two proceedings.”
Avery v. State of Georgia, 761 S.E.2d 56 (Ga. 2014). · cites it 2× “Paulding County later petitioned the superior court to validate the bond pursuant to OCGA § 36-82-75, and after the notice of the validation proceeding was published, Anthony Avery and Susan M.”
Hay v. Newton Cnty., 538 S.E.2d 181 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Moreover, OCGA § 36-82-75 requires the petition for validation of bonds to be filed in the superior court in which the governmental body issuing the bonds is located.”
Clayton Cnty. Airport Auth. v. State, 453 S.E.2d 8 (Ga. 1995). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to OCGA § 36-82-75, a petition for judicial validation of revenue bonds was filed in the name of appellee State of Georgia.”
Reed v. State of Georgia, 458 S.E.2d 113 (Ga. 1995). · cites it 2× “1 See OCGA § 36-82-75 et seq. 2 Ga. L. 1987, p.”
Julian M. Bene v. State of Georgia (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8× “First, Bene contends the appellees failed to comply with OCGA § 36-82-75, which requires the bond validation petitions to state “for what purpose the bonds are 3 Because the project at issue in Case No.”
Erica M. Long v. Dev. Auth. of Fulton Cnty. (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “OCGA § 36-82-75 provides, in part, that such a petition shall set forth “the name of the governmental body seeking to issue the bonds, the amount of bonds to be issued, [and] for what purpose the bonds are to be issued.”
Julian M. Bene v. State of Georgia (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “” Though the petitions, bond resolutions, and lease agreements allege that the purpose of the bonds is to provide financing for the projects and to support the public interest, Bene argues that the appellees failed to Authority’s “interest in the [p]roject is tax-exempt under…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.