This is the second appearance of this case before this Court. In Fox v. City of Cumming , “Fox I “1 we held that the newly-enacted Landowner’s Bill of Rights and Private Property Protection Act, OCGA § 22-1-11, applied to pending condemnation proceedings only. Thus, because the City of Cumming had not instituted condemnation proceedings when Deborah Fox filed suit under the statute to challenge the City’s assertion of its power of eminent domain to survey her property, we affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Fox’s action against the City.2 After receiving the remittitur, the City filed a motion for attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14. The trial court granted the motion, and we granted Fox’s application for discretionary appeal to review the award. As reported in Fox I , Fox received a letter from the City in June 2007 notifying her that the City would be entering her property to conduct a survey for the purpose of designing sewer facilities located in part there. The City stated that its power of eminent domain gave it the right to enter Fox’s property for the purpose of performing the survey. Fox objected in correspondence and in meetings with the City, but the City informed her that it would undertake the survey over her objection. Fox then filed an action seeking an injunction to block the survey and a determination, under OCGA § 22-1-11, as to whether the City’s sewer plan was a lawful exercise of the power of eminent domain for a public use. The City moved to dismiss, and before the hearing on the motion, the trial court entered a consent order allowing the survey to take place. After the hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement and dismissed the action.3
In affirming, we noted that OCGA § 22-1-11′s enacting legislation provides that the statute “shall apply to those condemnation proceedings filed on or after February 9, 2006.”4 Thus, we construed the statute to mean that no claim may be filed thereunder unless a condemnation action has been filed. Accordingly, because the City had not filed a condemnation action, we held that there was no justiciable controversy.5
