O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-82-78 (2019)

Effect of judgment of validation

✓ 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

If no appeal is filed within the time prescribed by law or if an appeal is filed and the judgment is affirmed on appeal, the judgment of the superior court confirming and validating the issuance of the bonds and the security therefor shall be forever conclusive against the governmental body upon the validity of such bonds and the security therefor.

History

Ga. L. 1937, p. 761, § 14; Ga. L. 1966, p. 48, § 3.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For annual survey of

local government law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 289 (2005).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality. - See Lawson v. City of Moultrie, 194 Ga. 699, 22 S.E.2d 592 (1942). Conclusiveness of validation judgment. - Judgment of the superior court validating revenue bonds under the Revenue Bond Law (O.C.G.A. Art. 3, Ch. 82, T. 36), unexcepted to, or affirmed on review, is conclusive against the municipality and the citizens of the municipality upon all questions, including the constitutionality of the statute under which the proceedings are had. Cox v. Georgia Educ. Auth., 225 Ga. 542, 170 S.E.2d 240 (1969). Validation judgment regarding revenue bonds for a county’s acquisition of a hospital, which had been found to be illegal, was nonetheless conclusive because the judgment had not been appealed and sale of the revenue bonds could not be enjoined. Turpen v. Rabun County Bd. of Comm’rs, 251 Ga. App. 505, 554 S.E.2d 727 (2001). Validation order conclusive on intergovernmental contract’s legitimacy. - See AMBAC Indem. Corp. v. Akridge, 262 Ga. 773, 425 S.E.2d 637, cert. denied, 510 U.S. 817, 114 S. Ct. 69, 126 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1993). Action not barred as collateral attack. - Taxpayer’s petition seeking a declaration that the valuation method a county board of assessors and the development authority of the county used for leasehold estates arising from a local development authority sale-leaseback bond transaction was illegal was not barred for being a collateral attack on concluded bond validation proceedings because the

challenge to the memoranda of agreement that set forth the tax assessment formula at issue would only constitute a prohibited collateral attack on a concluded bond validation proceeding if the memoranda were specifically adjudicated in the proceedings and held valid by the bond judgment, and the board and authority had to put forth evidence that the applicable bond validation orders did in fact expressly rule upon each memorandum of agreement. Moreover, even if the taxpayer was barred from challenging the tax agreements on concluded bond transactions, the taxpayer also sought an injunction to prohibit the use of the formula in future bond agreements. Sherman v. Fulton County Bd. of Assessors, 288 Ga. 88, 701 S.E.2d 472 (2010). Validation not conclusive as to tax exemption as public property. - Two bond validation orders pertaining to a hospital authority’s establishment of a continuing care retirement center did not conclusively determine, for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 48-5-41(a)(1)(A), that the property was public property exempt from ad valorem taxation; remand was required for the trial court to address taxability. Columbus Board of Tax Assessors v. Medical Ctr. Hosp. Auth., 302 Ga. 358, 806 S.E.2d 525 (2017). Cited in Gibbs v. City of Social Circle, 191 Ga. 422, 12 S.E.2d 335 (1940); Miller v. Columbus, 229 Ga. 234, 190 S.E.2d 535 (1972); Ferdinand v. City of Atlanta, 285 Ga. 121, 674 S.E.2d 309 (2009); Sherman v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 293 Ga. 268, 744 S.E.2d 26 (2013).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 64 Am. Jur. 2d, Public Securities and Obligations, § 373 et seq.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Sherman v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Assessors, 701 S.E.2d 472 (Ga. 2010).
Sherman v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Assessors, 701 S.E.2d 472 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 8× “IV; OCGA § 36-82-78; Quarterman v. Douglas County Bd.”
Ambac Indem. Corp. v. Akridge, 425 S.E.2d 637 (Ga. 1993). · cites it 8× “If no appeal is filed within the time prescribed by law or if an appeal is filed and the judgment is affirmed on appeal, the judgment of the superior court confirming and validating the issuance of the bonds and the security therefor shall be forever conclusive against the…”
Jones v. City of Atlanta, 908 S.E.2d 519 (Ga. 2024). · cites it 4× “6 Though “the judgment of the superior court confirming and validating the issuance of the bonds and the security therefore shall be forever conclusive against the governmental body upon the validity of such bond and the security therefor,” OCGA § 36-82-78, we have made clear…”
Quarterman v. Douglas Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 602 S.E.2d 651 (Ga. 2004). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 36-82-78. “This court has held consistently that this statutory provision prevents any collateral attack by the county, county *364 residents, or taxpayers who had proper notice of the validation proceedings but chose not to intervene.”
Columbus Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Med. Ctr. Hosp. Auth., 806 S.E.2d 525 (Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 36-82-78 (“[T]he judgment of the superior court confirming and validating the issuance of the bonds and the security therefor shall be forever conclusive against the governmental body upon the validity of such bonds and the security therefor.”
Greene Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners v. Higdon, 626 S.E.2d 541 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “The defendants argued that pursuant to OCGA § 36-82-78, a bond validation order cannot be collaterally attacked by the county, county residents, or taxpayers who had proper notice of the validation proceedings but chose not to intervene.”
Turpen v. Rabun Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 554 S.E.2d 727 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “17 OCGA § 36-82-78. See also OCGA § 31-7-81 (a) (indicating that revenue certificates issued by a hospital authority “shall be confirmed and validated in accordance with [the Revenue Bond Law]; and, when validated, the judgment of validation shall be final and conclusive with…”
Sherman v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 744 S.E.2d 26 (Ga. 2013). · cites it 4× “IV; OCGA § 36-82-78). That is the effect of a precedential decision of this Court.”
The Med. Ctr. Hosp. Auth. v. Columbus, Georgia Bd. of Tax Assessors, 788 S.E.2d 879 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 36-82-78. Our Supreme Court has explained the reason for the rule.”
Ferdinand v. City of Atlanta, 674 S.E.2d 309 (Ga. 2009). · cites it 2× “Although the City contends that Ferdinand has not shown what evidence might have been presented regarding a writ of mandamus, this argument misses the mark; Ferdinand was not afforded the notice required to ensure that he could establish the necessity for a factual…”
Columbus Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Med. Ctr. Hosp. Auth. (Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 36-82-78 (“[T]he judgment of the superior court confirming and validating the issuance of the bonds and the security therefor shall be forever conclusive against the governmental body upon the validity of such bonds and the security therefor.”
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.