Summary
The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the City of Greensboro's motion to dismiss claims arising from the construction and maintenance of a drainage ditch across the Rowlands' properties. The court held that sovereign immunity did not bar the inverse-condemnation and related claims and that the Rowlands' ante litem notices substantially complied with OCGA § 36-33-5.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether sovereign immunity barred the Rowlands' claims arising from the City's drainage project and alleged taking of their property.
- Whether the Rowlands' ante litem notices substantially complied with OCGA § 36-33-5.
- Whether ante litem notice for a continuing nuisance or trespass had to identify a specific date or event for each injury.
Holdings
- Sovereign immunity did not bar the claims because the Rowlands alleged that the City's drainage system caused an unlawful taking of their property; the Georgia Constitution itself waives sovereign immunity for takings requiring just compensation.
- The Rowlands' notices substantially complied with OCGA § 36-33-5 because they placed the City on notice of the general character of the complaint and, generally, the time, place, and extent of the injury.
- A property owner alleging continuing nuisance or trespass need not identify a specific date for each injury in the ante litem notice. The notice limits recovery to damages incurred during the six months preceding notice, subject to the applicable limitations period.
Key quotations
“Here, because the Rowlands assert that the damage from the City’s drainage system amounts to an unlawful taking of their Property, sovereign immunity has been waived by the terms of the Constitution.” (334 Ga. App. at 150)
“The information supplied will be deemed sufficient if it puts a municipality on notice of the general character of the complaint, and, in a general way, of the time, place, and extent of the injury.” (334 Ga. App. at 152)
“Where a trespass is continuing in nature, . . . a new cause of action arises daily.” (334 Ga. App. at 153)
Factual background
The Rowlands owned property on Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive in Greensboro. After receiving a community development grant for drainage improvements, the City installed an expansion pipe and drainage ditch through the property. The Rowlands alleged that the City's project and continued maintenance increased water flow and caused ongoing flooding, environmental and sanitation problems, infestation, and pecuniary damage, amounting to an unlawful taking and continuing nuisance or trespass. The City had acquired easements from other property owners but had not obtained one from or compensated the Rowlands.
Procedural history
The Rowlands sued the City seeking compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. The trial court dismissed the punitive-damages claim but denied the City's motion to dismiss the remaining claims based on sovereign immunity and allegedly inadequate ante litem notice. The Court of Appeals affirmed.