Summaries of Opinions Released – January 25, 2010

The Supreme Court released opinions in a number of cases this morning, only three of which were civil.  Below are brief summaries of the issues in the case, along with a link to the Supreme Court’s decision and a summary of the opinion.

S09A1445. BROUGHTON v. DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD of ELECTIONS et al.; S09A1446. QUARTERMAN v. DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD of ELECTIONS et al.

The Supreme Court receives direct appeals in cases related to elections.  In this case, both candidates were defeated by incumbents in the November 2008 elections and challenged the results of the elections. The trial court dismissed both cases, finding they should have been filed five days after certification by the Douglas County Board of Elections instead of the 10 days both sides waited before challenging.

The candidates argue the five-day window in the statute did not start until the certification of the entire state’s election results by the Secretary of State. The Board of Elections relies on the language of the statute that the time runs from the time of certification “by the election official having responsibility for taking such action.” Because the elections were local, the Board argues the official referenced by the statute is the local Board of Elections, not the Secretary of State.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on September 15, 2009.  We recapped the oral argument.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court.  Justice Carley wrote for the Court, finding that the deadline for filing an election challenge runs from the date of certification by the official responsible for certification of that office, not only the certification by the Secretary of State.  The Secretary of State has no statutory duty to certify election results for county offices, and thus the challenges which were filed more than five days after the local superintendent certified the results were untimely.

S09A1588. SETLOCK v. SETLOCK

Although this case involves a family dispute over the ownership of a lake house, it turns on the application of the doctrine of res judicata to civil cases. Both parties dispute the ownership of a lake house, with the son claiming his father refused to leave the house the son owns, and the father claiming the son had given him partial ownership in the house.

The parties litigated an eviction and counterclaim seeking co-ownership in Magistrate Court, with the court ruling in the son’s favor. The father attempted to appeal to the Superior Court, but filed the claim too late. The father then filed a new action in Superior Court, again claiming co-ownership among other claims. The Superior Court dismissed most of the father’s claims, finding they were barred by the decision in Magistrate Court. The question on appeal turns on whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to this situation, with the father claiming the Magistrate Court had no jurisdiction to rule on his claims of ownership, while the son claims that res judicata applies because a party must bring all claims at one time or lose them.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on September 21, 2009.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision that barred the father from bringing claims in superior court which he asserted as counterclaims in magistrate court.  Justice Melton wrote for the Court, finding that the magistrate court had no statutory jurisdiction over the counterclaims brought by the father.  The father did not choose magistrate court as the forum, but responded to an action brought by the son.  Thus, the doctrine of res judicata did not apply to the father’s counterclaims because the magistrate court could not have ruled on them.

S09A1935. EAST GEORGIA LAND and DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC v. BAKER et al.

This case involves a county ordinance and the construction of a landfill in Newton County. In 1997, a developer attempted to construct a landfill in the County. The County responded by refusing to issue the necessary letter, claiming a 1985 zoning ordinance prohibited the construction of a landfill. But the County could not locate the original of the new zoning ordinance that was adopted at the meeting. The Probate Judge filed a petition with the superior court in the county under OCGA 24-8-1, which allows a court to establish copies of lost records as originals. The trial court established the copy as a public record, and the developer appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the Lost Records Act violates the separation of powers by giving the judicial branch power to create legislation.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 9, 2009.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court establishing the copy as a public record.  Justice Carley wrote for the Court, finding that the Lost Records Act could be used for ordinances, not just judicial or real estate records.  On the claim that the Lost Records Act violates the constitution, the Court found the establishment of a lost record is more akin to interpretation of legislation which is already effective as opposed to adopting an ordinance.  The Court concluded that the re-establishing of the ordinance of the Lost Records Act was an appropriate exercise of power under the Lost Records Act.