At a tax sale, Marathon Investment Corporation MIC was the successful bidder for a vacant lot located at 321 Hills Avenue in Atlanta and a tax deed was executed and delivered. The owners of the parcel and defendants in fi. fa. were listed as Janet Spinkston and Roxie Taylor, in their representative capacities as trustees for the Hills Avenue Baptist Church Church. At the time of the sale, the Church was an unincorporated religious association. The Church sanctuary and the subject property were separated by the main parking lot for the parishioners’ vehicles. The parcel at 321 Hills Avenue was used for overflow parking. A year after receiving the tax deed, MIC filed notice of foreclosure of the right to redeem the property. Ms. Spinkston and Ms. Taylor Trustees were personally served, but neither they nor the Church tendered the redemption price to MIC. Thereafter, MIC initiated this quiet title action. The Trustees answered, and asserted that, because the property actually belonged to the Church, it was tax-exempt and that the tax sale was, therefore, void or voidable. The proceeding was heard by a special master, who found in favor of the Trustees. The superior court approved and adopted the special master’s report, vesting title in Trustees and declaring the tax sale void. MIC appeals from the superior court’s order.
1. OCGA § 48-5-41 a 2.1 A provides that “all places of religious worship” are exempt from ad valorem taxes. “The words ‘religious worship’ import a concept of a congregation assembling in a place open to the public to honor the Deity through reverence and homage.” Leggett v. Macon Baptist Assn. , 232 Ga. 27, 30 II 205 SE2d 197 1974. 321 Hills Avenue is the site of the Church’s auxiliary parking lot, not its actual sanctuary. However, OCGA § 48-5-41 a 2.1 A is phrased in inclusive general terms of “all places of religious worship,” and does not employ the terms “house” or “church” of religious worship, which, arguably, might have limited it to a building. If the presence of the omnipotent and omnipresent God cannot be restricted to a mere man made edifice, surely it was not intended to limit the worship of such a God to a building. . . . Even in cases relating primarily to exemptions for “buildings” of colleges, this Court has held that “the exemption embraces the land adjacent thereto necessary for their proper use, occupancy, and enjoyment.” Cits. Emphasis in original. Roberts v. Atlanta Baptist Assn. , 240 Ga. 503, 508-509 241 SE2d 224 1978. Certainly, the proper use, occupancy and enjoyment of places of religious worship can require that accommodation be provided for the vehicles of the members of the attending congregation.
