DIRT Development for Monday, February 23, 2009
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Husch Blackwell Sanders
Kansas City, Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu
Note that there are two reports here on different aspects the same case:
ZONING AND LAND USE; PROCEDURE; APPEAL; EVIDENCE: Appellants of a zoning decision may introduce new evidence on appeal, as it is a de novo review of a “legislative act.” Stendahl v. Cobb County, 284 Ga. 525, 668 S.E.2d 723 (Ga. Sup. Ct. 2008).
Adjacent landowners appealed approval of rezoning petition to county superior court claiming that the rezoning decision violated zoning ordinance and was unconstitutional. The county filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and for failure to join as defendants the owners of the rezoned property. The trial court granted the county's motion on both grounds. The trial court applied the "any evidence" standard: any evidence produced by the adjacent landowners would only conflict with the evidence supporting the rezoning decision and would not be sufficient to warrant overturning same.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia noted that the denial of an application for rezoning is a "legislative act" subject to a "de novo review" and that the trial court was not limited to examining the evidence presented to the zoning authority at the administrative level. Consequently, the adjacent landowners could introduce new evidence, including expert testimony.
The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred when it granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim after applying the "any evidence" standard.
ZONING AND LAND USE; PROCEDURE; APPEAL; PARTIES: Where zoning applicants are named as parties to neighbor’s appeal of a rezoning action, the actual owners of real property are not indispensable parties. Stendahl v. Cobb County, 284 Ga. 525, 668 S.E.2d 723 (Ga. Sup. Ct. 2008).
The adjacent landowners also argued that the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties. The trial court concluded that the owners were necessary parties because the zoning conditions "ran with the land" and were not personal to the applicants.
The Supreme Court, however, concluded that the trial court erred in dismissing the adjacent landowner's action for failure to join the true owners of the property on the grounds that the true owners were not a necessary party for the adjudication of the zoning appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the true owners did not fit within the definition of "indispensable parties" because the "case could be decided on its merits without prejudicing the rights of the owners since the rezoning applicant is a party and presents a thorough case on behalf of itself and ultimately the owner." Because the trial court applied the wrong standard of review and erred in concluding that the owners were necessary parties, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's grant of the motion to dismiss.
Readers are encouraged to respond to or criticize this posting.
Items reported on DIRT and in the ABA publications related to it are for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or in the forming of decisions in legal matters. The same is true of all commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT list. Accuracy of data provided and opinions expressed by the DIRT editor the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 - 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day. To
subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
for information on other commands, send the message
Help to the listserv address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses upon residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
http://www.umkc.edu/dirt/