O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 48-5-296 (2019)

Removal from office on petition of freeholders; appeals

✓ 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

Whenever by petition to the judge of the superior court any 100 or more freeholders of the county allege that any member of the county board of tax assessors is disqualified or is not properly and impartially discharging his duties or is discriminating in favor of certain citizens or classes of citizens and against others, the judge shall cite the member to appear before him at a time and place to be fixed in the citation, such time to be not less than 20 nor more than 40 days from the date of the presentation of the petition, and to answer to the petition. A copy of the petition shall be attached to the citation and service of the citation may be made by any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or constable of this state. The officer making the service shall serve copies and return the original petition and citation to the clerk of the court as other process is returned. At the time and place fixed in the citation, unless postponed for reasonable cause, the judge shall hear and determine the matter without a jury and shall render such judgment and order as may be right and proper, either dismissing the petition or removing the offending member of the county board of tax assessors from office and declaring a vacancy in the office. If either party to the controversy is dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the court, the party may appeal the issue as in other cases.

History

Ga. L. 1913, p. 123, § 4; Code 1933, § 92-6909; Ga. L. 1946, p. 726, § 29; Code 1933, § 91A-1439, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 309, § 2; Ga. L. 1980, p. 771, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. For article surveying legislative and judicial developments in Georgia local government law for 1978-79, see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 155 (1979).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Notice provisions constitutional. - O.C.G.A. § 48-5-296 expressly provides for both notice and hearing as a matter of right, and clearly meets the Constitution’s requirements of due process. Brown v. Wetherington, 250 Ga. 682, 300 S.E.2d 680, 1983 Ga. LEXIS 610 (1983). Style of proceeding. - Proceeding for the removal of members of a county board of tax assessors brought in the name of a committee consisting of over 100 freeholders met the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 48-5-296, even though the proper style of the case would be the names of the petitioner freeholders. Committee for Better Gov’t v. Black, 216 Ga. App. 173, 453 S.E.2d 772, 1995 Ga. App. LEXIS 60 (1995), cert. denied, No. S95C0830, 1995 Ga. LEXIS 688 (Ga. Apr. 20, 1995). Discretion of court. - It is within the court’s discretion to remove members from office upon showing cause. Allen v. Norris, 151 Ga. App. 305, 259 S.E.2d 701, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2536 (1979). Removal of board members held unwarranted. - Superior court did not abuse the court’s discretion in determining that removal of board members was not warranted since the court concluded that the board members were qualified, that the members had acted in a proper, reasonable, and impartial fashion in preparing a tax digest, and that the members did not discriminate in favor of certain citizens or classes of citizens and against others. Thompson v. Queen, 198 Ga. App. 627, 402 S.E.2d 361, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 205 (1991). Trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion in determining that the removal of board members was not warranted under the evidence presented.

Swafford v. Bradford, 225 Ga. App. 486, 484 S.E.2d 300. Trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion in refusing to remove the only two members of the Montgomery County Board of Tax Assessors for their failure to take courses required under O.C.G.A. § 48-5-291(a)(6) as the members had become current by completing the required coursework; the trial court properly considered O.C.G.A. § 48-5-296 and found that removing the only two Board members would disrupt an essential county function, which finding was buttressed by evidence that the county had difficulty obtaining people to fill positions on the Board. Smith v. Montgomery County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 268 Ga. App. 177, 601 S.E.2d 386, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 815 (2004), cert. denied, No. S04C1864, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 868 (Ga. Sept. 27, 2004). Trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion in refusing to remove the only two members of the Montgomery County Board of Tax Appeals for the members’ failure to hire a level III appraiser as the chief county appraiser, as required by O.C.G.A. § 48-5-264(a), for the inadequacy of the notice sent to taxpayers to explain the increased assessments of property, and for the failure to supervise a county-wide mass appraisal; while the trial court was troubled by the members’ actions, budget restraints were, in part, to blame for the failure to hire a level III appraiser, and the court did not abuse the court’s discretion in concluding that removing the only two members from the Board was too drastic a remedy and would disrupt the running of an essential office. Smith v. Montgomery County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 268 Ga. App. 177, 601 S.E.2d 386, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 815 (2004), cert. denied, No. S04C1864, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 868 (Ga. Sept. 27, 2004).

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. C.J.S., Officers Employees, § 120 et seq.

and

Public

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: We v. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 734 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

We v. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 734 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. 2012). · cites it 2× “Taxpayers, believing that the exception did not apply and that the moratorium should have been imposed, filed a complaint under OCGA § 48-5-296 seeking the removal of Board members.”

Comm. for Better Gov't v. Black, 453 S.E.2d 772 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “A proceeding was instituted under OCGA § 48-5-296 to remove from office the chairman and certain members of the Cherokee County Board of Tax Assessors.”

Swafford v. Bradford, 484 S.E.2d 300 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “A freehold petition was filed by 131 individuals in superior court under OCGA § 48-5-296, seeking to remove from office Bessie Bradford, Howard Massey and Frank Winans, three of the four members of the Dade County Board of Tax Assessors.”

Smith v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 601 S.E.2d 386 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “Ronnie Smith and other unnamed individuals (collectively, “Smith”), acting as “freeholders” under OCGA § 48-5-296, petitioned to remove from office John Brewer and Howard Morris, members of Montgomery County’s Board of Tax Assessors (the “Board”).”

Thompson v. Queen, 402 S.E.2d 361 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “Acting as “freeholders” of Walton County, Georgia, the appellants filed a petition in superior court pursuant to OCGA § 48-5-296, seeking to remove from office the entire membership of the Walton County Board of Tax Assessors on the following asserted grounds: “(a) Failure to…”

Brown v. Wetherington, 300 S.E.2d 680 (Ga. 1983). · cites it 9× “Subsequently, over one hundred freeholders of the county petitioned the superior court pursuant to OCGA § 48-5-296 (Code Ann. § 91A-1439) 2 to remove Brown and Hicks on the grounds that they were “not properly and impartially discharging their duties and [were] discriminating in…”

Nabilah Islam Parkes v. Brian P. Kemp (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Similarly, the Recall Act of 1989 provides that “at least 100 electors or equal in number to at least 10 percent of the number of electors who were registered to vote at the last preceding election” may apply to recall an elected official of this State, see OCGA § 21-4-5, and…”

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.