Lilly v. Heard

Res judicata barred the plaintiffs' quo warranto action seeking to remove the defendant from the county Board of Education, as a pre-election challenge to the defendant's candidacy on the same grounds was resolved in her favor.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellants Nettie Lilly and Janet Anderson filed a complaint against appellee Sharon Heard, seeking a writ of quo warranto to remove her from the Baker County Board of Education. Heard moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, and the trial court granted the motion. Appellants now appeal from that order. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

1. On November 6, 2012, Heard was elected to the Baker County Board of Education. In July 2013, Appellants filed this action, contending that Heard had been a registered voter in Thomas County from June 2007 until April 30, 2012, when she registered to vote in Baker County, and that she therefore could not meet the residency requirements to be a member of the Baker County Board of Education. See OCGA § 45-2-1 1 “The residency requirement for a candidate for any county office . . . shall be 12 months residency within the county”; Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VIII, Sec. V, Par. II providing that local “school board members shall reside within the territory embraced by the school system and shall have such compensation and additional qualifications as may be provided by law”. To their complaint, Appellants attached Heard’s voter registration card from Thomas County, dated June 28, 2007, and documents from the Georgia Secretary of State showing that Heard registered to vote in Baker County on April 30, 2012, and first voted in Baker County on July 31, 2012. Appellants subsequently amended the paragraph of their complaint that alleged that, because Heard was a resident of Thomas County and not Baker County, she did not meet the one-year residency requirement, to allege that Heard “remains unqualified to serve on the Baker County Board of Education as Heard does not reside in the District that she represents.” See OCGA § 20-2-51 a “No person shall be eligible for election as a member of a local board of education who is not a resident of the school district in which that person seeks election and of the election district which such person seeks to represent.”.

Lilly v. Heard

Res judicata barred the plaintiffs' quo warranto action seeking to remove the defendant from the county Board of Education, as a pre-election challenge to the defendant's candidacy on the same grounds was resolved in her favor.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report