Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Urbanization and Agriculture

Court Denies Animal Facility Operator's Request for a
Continuation of Current Use Assessments

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Morrison v. Claborn, 669 S.E.2d 492 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008), the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Superior Court, Jasper County, granting the county board of tax appraisers' motion for summary judgment. Landowner appealed board's decision to remove conservation use designation from properties he used to operate swine and poultry facilities. The court held that the rules of statutory construction required it to interpret O.C.G.A. § 48-5-7.4(a)(1)(E) and (b)(5) in favor of the board.

Background

Landowner's three properties were approved by the board as bona fide conservation use properties eligible for current use assessment. Id. at 493. When a current use assessment application is granted, the property is assessed at 40% of its current use value instead of 40% of its fair market value for purposes of calculating ad valorem taxes. Id. In 2004, when landowner initially applied for current use assessments, he had a partial ownership in two of the parcels and no ownership interest in the third. Id. The 2004 applications were subsequently approved. Id. In 2005, landowner acquired sole ownership of all three properties and successfully applied for continuation of the three current use assessments. Id. However, at the time landowner initially applied for current use assessments, and, at continuation, the three properties were subject to restrictive covenants prohibiting the operation of poultry or swine facilities. Id. at 494. In June 2006, a member of the board identified that landowner's properties were subject to restrictive covenants prohibiting certain agricultural activities. Id. The board voted to remove the conservation use designation on landowner's properties, and notified landowner of the same in a letter dated July 21, 2006. Id.

On August 17, 2006, landlord filed a complaint for declaratory judgment requesting the trial court to nullify the board's decision and permanently enjoin the board from removing the current use assessment. Id. Landowner also filed a motion for summary judgment. Id. The board answered the complaint and successfully cross-motioned for summary judgment. Id. Landowner appealed. Id.

Arguments

Landowner claimed that the trial court misconstrued the statute and that the restrictive covenants did not render his properties ineligible for current use assessment. Id. He argued that the statute prohibited him from conducting all of the proscribed activities, but did not prevent him from conducting some. Id.

The board argued that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in its favor, because, under the terms of the statute, landlord was not entitled to current use assessment. Id. It asserted that current use assessment eligibility was contingent upon not conducting any of the statute's proscribed activities. Id. at 495.

Analysis and Holdings

Because the meaning of the statute was not plain on its face, the court resorted to other rules of statutory construction. Id. First, the court restated the well-established principle that "laws granting exemption from taxation must be construed in favor of the taxing authority." Id. Second, the court believed that accepting landlord's interpretation of the statute would run contrary to the rule of statutory construction that requires courts to avoid construing statutory language as mere surplusage. Id. at 496. For these reasons, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting board's motion for summary judgment. Id.

The case was decided on November 13, 2008.