Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; November 7, 2013; Georgia; State Appellate Court
The Terrell County Board of Tax Assessors appeals a superior court decision that Jason and Brian Goolsby did not breach a conservation use covenant by operating a commercial grain business on their property, which otherwise qualifies as bona fide conservation use property. The court rejected the Goolsbys' claim of untimeliness in the appeal, ruling that the superior court appropriately extended the appeal deadline. The board argued that the Goolsbys' business operations constituted a breach of the covenant, but the superior court held that operating a business does not inherently breach the covenant. The appellate court disagreed, stating that if business use is incidental, occasional, or temporary and does not conflict with the primary agricultural use, it does not constitute a breach. The appellate court found the superior court's interpretation of the conservation use covenant statute (OCGA § 48-5-7.4) to be erroneous and vacated the judgment, remanding the case for reconsideration. The statute allows property owners to apply for a current use assessment, resulting in significant tax benefits, provided they adhere to certain conditions regarding the use of the property for agricultural purposes. The definition of bona fide conservation use property includes the production of agricultural products and allows for incidental uses that do not detract from the primary agricultural purpose.
OCGA § 48-5-7.4 outlines the requirements for property to qualify for current use assessment as bona fide conservation use property. A tract is eligible if at least half is used for a qualifying purpose, unless another type of business operates on the unused portion. Property owners must covenant with the taxing authority to maintain this qualifying use for ten years, with breaches resulting in loss of eligibility and imposition of penalties. The Goolsbys own 448.5 acres in Terrell County and entered a ten-year conservation use covenant effective January 1, 2007. They later established Goolsby Farm Supply, a commercial grain business, which the board deemed a violation of their covenant. The Goolsbys appealed this determination, and the Terrell County Board of Equalization upheld the board's decision. However, the superior court ruled in favor of the Goolsbys, stating no breach occurred. The board then appealed, raising jurisdictional issues regarding the timeliness of its notice of appeal. The board initially filed a timely appeal but dismissed it to seek reconsideration. After the superior court denied that motion, the board requested an extension to file its appeal, which was granted. The Goolsbys contended that the extension was defective due to lack of specificity, but the court held that it had the authority to grant the extension without specifying the order it applied to, affirming the board's subsequent notice of appeal as timely. If the extension were viewed as related to the denial of reconsideration, it would be considered a futile motion.
In Jim Ellis Atlanta v. Adamson, 283 Ga. App. 116 (2006), the court determined that the superior court's grant of an extension allowed for a timely notice of appeal from an October 30 order, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of the Appellate Practice Act to ensure decisions are made on the merits of cases. Regarding the Goolsbys' operation of a commercial grain business, the board alleged a breach of the conservation use covenant under OCGA § 48-5-7.4 (b)(1). The Goolsbys argued that their primary use of the property for agricultural production remained intact and did not breach the covenant, as the commercial operation was incidental and non-detrimental to agricultural use. The court noted that any interpretation of the statute should aim to give meaningful effect to all its provisions and maintain consistency throughout. It highlighted the absence of statutory authority from the board to demonstrate a breach merely by operating a business consistent with the primary agricultural purpose. The statute implies that if a portion of the property is used for a non-qualifying business, it may affect the classification of the property, but incidental uses that do not conflict with the primary agricultural purpose do not constitute a breach of the covenant.
If a taxpayer operates a separate business that conflicts with the primary agricultural use of the property, the land does not qualify for current use assessment under OCGA § 48-5-7.4 (a)(1). Bona fide conservation use property must primarily be for commercial production of agricultural products. The superior court erred if its judgment was based on a different interpretation. The Goolsbys contend that the prohibition on operating a commercial business applies only when initially enrolling property in a conservation use covenant; however, this interpretation is rejected. According to OCGA § 48-5-7.4 (d), property must be maintained for ten years under a covenant with the taxing authority to qualify for current use assessment. OCGA § 48-5-7.4 (g) stipulates that a valid covenant must remain in effect, and the property must be continuously devoted to a qualifying use throughout the covenant period. Ga. Comp. R. Regs. r. 560-11-6-.06 (3) states that any event disqualifying the property results in a breach. These provisions clarify that maintaining qualifying use is essential to retain current use assessment benefits. The Goolsbys' judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of this opinion. Judges Doyle and Boggs concur.
