Sherman v. City of Atlanta

Appellants John S. Sherman and Christopher D. Eichler filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment confirming and validating a bond issuance by the City of Atlanta. See generally OCGA § 36-82-60 to 36-82-85 the “Revenue Bond Law”. However, at the bond validation hearing, the City disputed Appellants’ standing to become parties and raise objections in this case, and no competent evidence was admitted to show that either Appellant was a Georgia citizen and Atlanta resident, which were the prerequisites to becoming a party under the Revenue Bond Law. See OCGA § 36-82-77 “Any citizen of this state who is a resident of the governmental body which desires to issue such bonds may become a party to the proceedings at or before the time set for hearing . . . .”. Thus, Appellants failed to prove that they had standing to become parties, and the trial court should have dismissed their objections instead of rejecting those claims on the merits. And because Appellants lacked standing to become parties in the trial court, they also lack standing to appeal the trial court’s judgment. See id. “Only a party to the proceedings at the time the judgment appealed from is rendered may appeal from such judgment.” Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal.

1. On April 20, 2012, pursuant to OCGA § 36-82-75, the State of Georgia, through the District Attorney for Fulton County, petitioned the Fulton County Superior Court for a judgment confirming and validating the issuance by the City of Atlanta of up to $35 million in bonds secured by the tax allocation increments for the Perry-Bolton Tax Allocation District “Perry-Bolton TAD”. See generally Sherman v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys. “Sherman I”, __Ga.__, __SE2d__ Case No. S13A0333, decided June 3, 2013, slip op. at 3-12 discussing the history of TAD financing in Georgia and the Perry-Bolton TAD in particular. The petition named as defendants the government entities whose tax revenues would be included in the tax allocation increments: the City, Fulton County, and the Atlanta Independent School System collectively, “Appellees”.