On December 4, 2002, appellant/plaintiff Georgia Transmission Corporation “GTC” filed a condemnation petition in the Superior Court of Berrien County of the Alapaha Judicial Circuit1 —this to acquire by eminent domain an easement over a Berrien County property owned by appellee/defendant C. M. Jean Dixon for the purpose of installing a 115 volt electrical power transmission line the “Project”. For like purpose, GTC contemporaneously filed two additional condemnation petitions as to two parcels of land owned by Berrien County Superior Court Judge Carson Dane Perkins. The cases were assigned to Judge Perkins’ fellow judge on the two-judge Berrien County Superior Court,2 Chief Judge Brooks E. Blitch, III, for trial. On January 17, 2003, the cases came on for a consolidated hearing before a special master pursuant to the agreement of the parties. The special master issued his joint award on January 23, 2003, finding the Project unnecessary and disallowing the condemnation upon bad faith in GTC as the condemnor. On January 28, 2003, GTC filed its motion seeking Chief Judge Blitch’s recusal as trial judge. GTC supported the motion, in part, by the affidavit of counsel, averring: 1 counsel for condemnee’s status as a part-time judge of the superior court subject to sit as a superior court judge upon Chief Judge Blitch’s designation under OCGA § 15-1-9.1 b, and 2 the inherent “interrelationship and affiliation between and among” judges serving on the same court.
GTC filed its exceptions to the award of the special master in the superior court on January 31, 2003. GTC now appeals from the denial of these exceptions, contending that Chief Judge Blitch erred: 1 in failing to recuse himself from hearing its exceptions to the award of the special master as trial judge; 2 in adopting the special master’s finding that necessity for the Project had not been demonstrated for bad faith in GTC; 3 in refusing to qualify its expert witness as an expert; 4 in not admitting its Project release document and two computer generated documents of the Colquitt Electric Membership Corporation “EMC” under the business record exception to the rule against hearsay; 5 in finding that the Project did not support a public purpose; 6 in finding no proof of authority to proceed with the Project; 7 in finding that even were there necessity for the Project, the Project was subject to local zoning ordinances and permit requirements; and 8 in refusing to consider its exceptions to certain of the special master’s findings, i.e. that the Project constituted a nuisance to adjacent properties for resulting electromagnetic fields amounting to inverse condemnation; that the description of the property was indefinite for including the right to clear “dead, diseased, weak or leaning trees on lands adjacent to the project”; and that a finding as to just and adequate compensation for the property to be condemned was unnecessary as moot. Because we conclude that Chief Judge Blitch erred by denying Dixon’s GTC’s motion seeking his disqualification or recusal as the trial judge and that Chief Judge Blitch should not have presided over or ruled upon the case, we vacate the order complained-of as void and remand the case for rehearing not inconsistent with this opinion.
