Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Clayton County Board of Tax Assessors v. Lake Spivey Golf Club, Inc.
Citations: 428 S.E.2d 687; 207 Ga. App. 693; 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 1197; 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 277Docket: A92A2319
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; March 9, 1993; Georgia; State Appellate Court
The Clayton County Board of Tax Assessors assessed the fair market value of Lake Spivey Golf Club at $2,770,000 as of January 1, 1991. Lake Spivey Golf Club, Inc. and Golf South, Inc. appealed this decision, prompting the board to request document production from the golf club and two non-parties, Tara State Bank and the Small Business Administration (SBA). Lake Spivey and Golf South sought a protective order to block these requests, while the board filed a motion to compel discovery. The court granted the protective order and denied the board's motion, ruling that a previous jury verdict establishing the property's value at $1,700,000 on January 1, 1990, was admissible evidence in the current case. On interlocutory review, the Court of Appeals of Georgia determined that the trial court erred in admitting the prior jury verdict, as it did not pertain to the fair market value on January 1, 1991, which was the central issue. The court highlighted that the jury's opinion from the earlier case could not influence the current valuation and that only evidence relevant to the specific date in question was admissible. The court also criticized the trial court for issuing a protective order limiting discovery from the appellees and non-parties, asserting that the requested documents were relevant to the case. Lake Spivey and Golf South's claim that these documents were privileged was deemed without merit. The documents requested by the board may include admissions from Lake Spivey or Golf South regarding the property's value, which are not protected by professional privilege despite being part of a loan application. The appellees claim these documents are shielded under OCGA § 7-1-360, which protects confidential banking records; however, this statute does not prevent proper discovery in cases concerning taxable property valuations. The board seeks access solely to the documents submitted by the appellees, not communications from third parties. Lake Spivey and Golf South argue that the trial court acted within its discretion by granting a protective order, asserting the requested documents are irrelevant. However, such discretion must be exercised based on substantial evidence demonstrating bad faith or harassment by the discoveror, which Lake Spivey and Golf South failed to provide. The board presented testimony indicating the documents may contain valuable admissions related to the property's appraisal and could aid in cross-examination of the appellees’ witnesses. Even if the documents are not directly admissible, they are discoverable if likely to lead to admissible evidence. The court's limitation on the board's discovery scope was deemed improper, resulting in a reversal of the judgment.