Articles Posted in Real Estate Law

by
The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court centered on whether a condemnor may voluntarily dismiss a condemnation action, without the consent of the court or the condemnee, after a special master has entered his award valuing the property at issue but before the condemnor has paid the amount of the award into the court registry or to the condemnee. The Supreme Court concluded after review that a condemnor is not entitled to voluntarily dismiss a condemnation action unilaterally once the special master rendered his award. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment to the contrary. View "Dillard Land Investments, LLC v. Fulton County" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs James Hansen and 30 other DeKalb County residents sought to obtain certain information from the DeKalb County Board of Tax Assessors in connection with their 2012 property tax assessments. The trial court denied Plaintiffs’ request for a mandamus nisi, and they appealed. Plaintiffs filed their requests for information each seeking information regarding the appraisal and assessment of his or her property for the 2012 tax year. The trial court found that plaintiffs' claims were not cognizable under the Georgia Open Records Act or in mandamus. The Supreme Court found no error in that decision, and affirmed. View "Hansen v. Dekalb Cty. Bd. of Tax Assessors" on Justia Law

by
The issue this case presented to the Georgia Supreme Court centered on a dispute over the legal ownership of mineral rights to land located in Bartow County. On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court determined that appellee James Dellinger, Jr. held a legally enforceable interest in the mineral rights and granted summary judgment in his favor on claims filed by appellant Cartersville Ranch, LLC. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision in the main appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal as moot. View "Cartersville Ranch, LLC v. Dellinger" on Justia Law

by
This case centered on two actions filed by Keith DeCay concerning the ownership of four tracts of land located at 629 Boulevard in Atlanta: (1) a quiet title action and (2) a breach of contract action against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) from which he purchased part of 629 Boulevard at a foreclosure auction. In the quiet title action, DeCay argued (among other things) that the trial court erred by adopting a Special Master report tainted by a conflict of interest. In the breach of contract action, DeCay argued that the trial court erred by finding that the FDIC was not required to convey all four tracts of 629 Boulevard to him. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court with respect to both actions. View "DeCay v. Houston" on Justia Law