Atlanta Botanical Gardens - OC Today

Discussion in 'Citizens Encounters' started by Phil1979, Oct 12, 2014.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,216
    1,487
    113

    Just to clarify, both parties have moved for summary judgment. The links are to the briefs for each party.

    So the Garden is saying that it wins as a matter of law because the lease grants an estate for years.

    GCO is saying it wins as a matter of law because the lease grants a usufruct.

    Each side will respond to the other side within 30 days.

    Then the filer of the original brief files a reply even though there is no authority in Georgia law to do so, just because everybody does it anyway without any authority to do so.
     
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,216
    1,487
    113
    The determination will come down to whether the Garden lease is more like the lease in the Jekyll Development Associates, LP case or the Diversified Golf case.

    The Garden did not address the Diversified Golf case, and GCO did not address the Jekyll Development Associates case. Each will be forced to do so in its response to the other's motion for summary judgment.
     

  3. phantoms

    phantoms Senior Mumbler

    6,241
    198
    63
    Funny how judges turn something simple (if the government owns the land than private entities can't ban carry) to something complicated (well, um, um, um, it depends on if it's a usufruct or estate for years).:screwy:
     
    TimBob likes this.
  4. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,526
    552
    113
    There is actually a briefing order in this case, with specific dates for filing both responses and replies.
     
    Malum Prohibitum likes this.
  5. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,528
    621
    113
  6. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,869
    1,816
    113
  7. Craftsman

    Craftsman Well-Known Member

    3,005
    262
    83
    Tl;Dr. If the Gardens insist they have an Estate for Years so they can exclude lawfully armed citizens, then they owe ~$100M in back taxes.
     
    Siege, rmodel65 and Phil1979 like this.
  8. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,388
    74
    48
    So, it appears that the ABG is really planting its stake in the claim that the City of Atlanta can contract away the tax liability in an estate for years.

    What would happen if the court agrees with that? I imagine a lot of upset apple carts.
     
  9. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,388
    74
    48
    It’s too easy to imagine judges inventing some new concepts, like usufructs for years and estates for weekends.
     
  10. Alabama Jones

    Alabama Jones Señor Member

    1,452
    35
    48
    Wow, that is beautiful!
     
  11. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,528
    621
    113
    The Georgia Constitution spells out the law regarding ad valorem taxes. I don't believe the Court will disregard the text of the law or try to misapply it.
     
  12. timbrubaker

    timbrubaker I may be slow, but I sure am ugly

    1,177
    42
    48
    Nicely reasoned and written JRM.
     
  13. Siege

    Siege Active Member

    3,950
    3
    38
    I do so enjoy reading JRM's documents!
     
    MSgt G likes this.
  14. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,526
    552
    113
    Style and content editing credit goes to MP.
     
    timbrubaker, Siege and Phil1979 like this.
  15. Siege

    Siege Active Member

    3,950
    3
    38
    By your powers combined, you make for a truly great read. I've really enjoyed reading every filing of yours that I've seen over the years, adding MP to edit for style and content really pushes it over the top.
     
    timbrubaker likes this.
  16. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,528
    621
    113
  17. Clark

    Clark Well-Known Member

    1,031
    89
    48
    Why isn't anyone filing a motion to get rid of the brain-dead idiot that created this "estate for years" nonsense in the first place rather than just applying the law as written?
     
  18. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,526
    552
    113
    Hmm. Well, the brain dead idiot that created "estates for years" has no doubt been dead for centuries. So, filing a motion to "get rid" of him would be moot.
     
  19. Clark

    Clark Well-Known Member

    1,031
    89
    48
    Yea, sorry, just venting. I guess I meant created it as it applies here.
     
  20. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,869
    1,816
    113
    John brings up a very good point. :mrgreen: