THIRD DIVISION
MILLER, P. J. AND MCFADDEN, P. J.,
MCMILLIAN, J.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
http://www.gaappeals.us/rules
April 24, 2018
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A16A0638. COLUMBUS, GEORGIA BOARD OF TAX
ASSESSORS et al. v. MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL
AUTHORITY.
MCFADDEN, Presiding Judge.
This case concerns a tax board’s appeal of a ruling exempting property from
ad valorem taxation. In Columbus, Ga. Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Med. Center Hosp.
Auth., 338 Ga. App. 302 (788 SE2d 879) (2016), we affirmed (in Case No.
A16A0638) the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the Medical Center
Hospital Authority in its declaratory judgment action. We ruled that the Medical
Center’s leasehold interest in a continuing care retirement facility was exempt from
ad valorem taxation under OCGA § 48-5-41 (a) (1) (A), the public property
exemption, reasoning that earlier superior court bond validation orders controlled the
issue of whether the property furthered a legitimate function of the hospital authority.
Columbus, Ga. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 338 Ga. App. at 307 (2) (b). Our earlier opinion
also addressed a cross-appeal brought by the Hospital Authority (Case No.
A16A0639) in which the Hospital Authority asserted an alternative argument for the
exemption of the property from taxation. Id. at 308 (3).
The tax board sought and our Supreme Court granted certiorari to review our
decision in Case No. A16A0638, and in Columbus Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Med.
Center Hosp. Auth., 302 Ga. 358 (806 SE2d 525) (2017), our Supreme Court
reversed, holding that the earlier bond validation proceedings did not conclusively
determine for purposes of OCGA § 48-5-41 (a) (1) (A) that the leasehold interest at
issue is public property exempt from ad valorem taxation. Columbus Bd. of Tax
Assessors, supra, at 362-363. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further
proceedings, directing the superior court to “review all submitted record materials in
support of and opposing the motion [for summary judgment] in order to determine
whether a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the ad valorem tax exemption.”
Id. at 363, n. 6 (2).
The Hospital Authority did not seek certiorari of our opinion in Case No.
A16A0639, and on July 7, 2016, we returned a remittitur on that case to the trial
court. Because the Supreme Court did not grant certiorari on the question of whether
2
the Hospital Authority is entitled to an exemption on another ground, it did not
review that issue in its resolution of Case No. A16A0638. See Columbus Bd. of Tax
Assessors, 302 Ga. at 359, n. 1.
We therefore vacate our previous opinion, adopt the decision of the Supreme
Court as our own, vacate the superior court’s judgment that the Hospital Authority
is entitled to a public-property exemption, and remand the case for proceedings
consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. We observe that neither the
Supreme Court nor this Court has ruled on the Hospital Authority’s argument that it
is entitled to an exemption on another ground, so the Hospital Authority is entitled
to raise that argument again. Cf. OCGA § 9-11-60 (h).
Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. Miller, P.J., and
McMillian, J., concur.
3