Pennington v. Gwinnett County, No. A14A0999 (Oct. 9, 2014) was review of a grant of summary judgment, so the facts, viewed in light most favorable to the Penningtons, sure make it look like the county engaged in some sharp practices.
The Penningtons had an agreement with T-Mobile, which gave it the option to lease the Pennington property for a tower. Shortly thereafter, T-Mobile filed its application to build the tower with the county’s planning department. After a series of delays requested by T-Mobile, during which the county amended its policy which prohibited cell towers on county property, the county denied the application. And then T-Mobile and the county entered into an agreement to put the tower on county land.
The Penningtons sued for inverse condemation, asserting “that the county’s interference scuttled their deal with T-Mobile South.” Slip op. at 1.
The court of appeals concluded that an option contract is not “property,” and therefore, nothing was taken:
A contract is not compensable when it merely confers a contingent, future right. Coastal Water & Sewerage Co. v. Effingham County Indus. Dev. Auth., 288 Ga. App. 422, 424 (654 SE2d 236) (2007). “[The Penningtons have] done no more than prove that a prospective business opportunity was lost. More than that is necessary to constitute a compensable taking.” Id. at 428 (punctuation omitted) (citing United States v. Grand River Dam Auth., 360 U. S. 229, 236 (80 SCt 1134, 4 LE2d 1186) (1960)). See also State Bd. of Educ. v. Drury, 263 Ga. 429 (437 SE2d 290) (1993) (teachers who were denied renewable teaching certificates under invalidly promulgated regulations were not entitled to recover damages under the taking provision of the state Constitution, since they did not have a property interest in renewable teaching certificates that were never issued to them).
Slip op. at 6.
Pennington v. Gwinnett County, No. A14A0999 (Ga. App. Oct. 9, 2014)