Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Urban Encroachment
County Had Standing to Contest City's Annexation of Property
But Failed to Justify an Interlocutory Injunction
Eric H. FoyNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Cherokee County v. City of Holly Springs, 667 S.E.2d 78 (Ga. 2008), the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the Cherokee County Superior Court. Cherokee County sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the City of Holly Springs from annexing an area within the county. The court held that the county had standing to seek the injunction, but, in denying the injunction, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Background
In its attempt to prevent the City of Holly Springs from annexing Hickory Flats, Cherokee County motioned for an interlocutory injunction. Id. at 79. The county alleged that city failed to follow OCGA § 36-36-21 and its own ordinance during the annexation, and therefore, the alleged annexation was void. Id. Following a hearing, the trial court held that the county did not have standing to seek an interlocutory injunction. Id. In addition, the trial court held that the law and the facts of the case were so adverse to county's position that denial of the injunction was proper because of the resulting inconvenience and harm that the city would face. Id.
Arguments
The county argued that the trial court erred in holding that it lacked standing and in denying its request for an interlocutory injunction. Id. at 80.
Analysis and Holdings
The court reasoned that "a county's interest in the determination of its boundaries and the duties and obligations that naturally flow therefrom is present whether the basis for challenging a municipal annexation lies in procedural deficiencies of the more substantive lack of congruity." Id. For this reason, the instant court reversed the trial court and held that the county possessed standing to seek interlocutory injunctive relief. Id.
In determining whether to issue the interlocutory injunction, the instant court balanced the conveniences of the parties pending final adjudication. Id. One can issue an interlocutory injunction if, after balancing the relative equities of the parties, the equities favor the party seeking an injunction. Id. Because both parties presented evidence regarding both the threat of harm to the county and the validity of the challenged annexation applications, a balance of the equities failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the injunction. Id.
The case was decided on September 22, 2008.