In this condemnation action, a special master awarded the appellants, Paul and Sara Martin, $6,500 as just and adequate compensation. Being dissatisfied with the award, the Martins appealed to superior court.1 In superior court, a jury awarded the Martins $6,900 for the property, and the trial court awarded the appellee, the Henry County Water and Sewerage Authority Henry County $3,500 in attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 22-2-84.1. On appeal to this Court, the Martins contend, among other things, that the trial court erred by ruling against their claim that OCGA § 22-2-84.1 is unconstitutional. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 1. OCGA § 22-2-84.1 a provides that if a condemnee appeals a special master’s award to superior court and if the appeal does not result in an increase to the master’s award of at least 20, the condemnee “shall be liable for reasonable expenses incurred by the condemnor in determining just and adequate compensation in the superior court.” Similarly, OCGA § 22-2-84.1 a provides that if a condemnor appeals a special master’s award to superior court and if the appeal does not result in a decrease to the master’s award of at least 20, the condemnor “shall be liable for reasonable expenses incurred by the condemnee in determining just and adequate compensation in the superior court.” OCGA § 22-2-84.1 b provides that “reasonable expenses include, without being limited to, attorney fees.”
The Martins contend that OCGA § 22-2-84.1 is unconstitutional because, if they are required to pay the appellee’s attorney fees, it will diminish the amount of compensation they receive, and thus violate their constitutional right to receive just and adequate compensation.2 We disagree. To begin, it is well-settled that there is no constitutional right in condemnation cases to a jury trial on the issue of just and adequate compensation.3 In this regard, this Court has held that the method for determining just and adequate compensation is a matter of legislative discretion; that the assessment of just and adequate compensation by a special master satisfies the constitutional requirement that a property owner receive just and adequate compensation for his or her property; and that the General Assembly could provide that the award of compensation by a special master is final and unappealable.4 Moreover, under the special master method, the actual taking of the condemnee’s property is authorized to occur before the resolution of any value issue raised by a condemnee on appeal.5 Finally, because the right to take an appeal to superior court and have a jury trial on the value issue is a matter of legislative grace, the legislature is free to impose conditions on the exercise of the right to appeal.6 These considerations support the conclusion that, by conditioning an appeal to superior court on the payment of costs in the manner specified by the legislature, OCGA § 22-2-84.1 does not violate a property owner’s right to receive just and adequate compensation before a taking of his property occurs.
