City attorney moves code-enforcement liens from administrative review to municipal court, citing collection limits

The City of Atlanta law department told the Public Safety and Legal Administration Committee on Monday that it will transition many code‑enforcement cases from the Administrative In Rem Review Board process to judicial in rem proceedings in municipal court to preserve the city’s ability to collect liens and penalties.

City Attorney Patrice Perkins said the decision followed a review of court rulings and collection practice that showed administrative in rem orders have repeatedly been treated differently by judges and, in many instances, could not carry penalties, interest or long‑running lien status. Amber Ray Robinson, a deputy in the law department, told the committee that “the administrative in REM board and process was codified in February 2008.” Perkins said the department found hundreds of older administrative liens that courts had limited or voided and that changing the process was necessary to improve collections.

Perkins and deputy staff described the problem: administrative in rem orders typically rely on posting notice on property rather than personal service, and Georgia courts have constrained the remedies that follow from those administrative orders. The city attorney’s office said some liens were more than seven years old and therefore vulnerable; as a result, the office reported roughly $700,000 in outstanding administrative liens in which the city had collected about $126,000.

The law department described the alternative: file judicial in rem complaints in municipal court, where judges can ensure due process, allow personal service to property owners and preserve the ability to refresh liens beyond seven years. Perkins said the office had coordinated with the solicitor’s office and municipal court judges and had run trainings last month so judges and prosecutors are ready to resume judicial in rem dockets.

Council members pressed for public notice and for details about how the Administrative In Rem Review Board and its appointees will be used going forward. Vice Chair Dustin Hillis and other members said they had not been told in advance of the policy shift. Councilman Antonio Lewis and others emphasized caution for households with limited means and heirs who might be unaware of ownership issues. Daphne Talley, director of the city’s code‑enforcement section, said routine clean‑and‑cut matters would continue under existing notice rules but that demolition and other complex blight actions would move to municipal court when appropriate.

Perkins framed the move as a legal strategy to recover funds the city has not been able to recoup under the administrative regime and to provide greater procedural protections for defendants. She cited recent cases (including litigation named in the presentation) that undermined the city’s ability to collect penalties under administrative orders.

Committee members requested a public rollout. The committee asked the law department and the solicitor’s office to return in 30 days with a full implementation plan, a calendar or public listing of cases that will go to judicial in rem, and guidance on which matters will still be heard by the Administrative In Rem Review Board. Chairwoman Boone said the change “warrants public discussion.”

The committee did not vote on the change; the city attorney characterized it as an in‑house legal strategy and the committee recorded a formal direction that staff return with a public briefing in 30 days.