Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Updates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court of Appeals reverses, reinstates magistrate ruling in case involving Commissioner Hoyte; separate appeal remanded
Summary
At the Oct. 7 meeting County Attorney Bin Minter reported a Court of Appeals opinion that reversed a superior court decision in UGOCCC v. Damon Hoyte and reinstated the magistrate court ruling; a related Haymond v. Hoyte appeal was vacated and remanded, leaving motions still pending in Superior Court.
County Attorney Bin Minter told the Board of Commissioners at its Oct. 7 regular meeting that the Georgia Court of Appeals issued two recent opinions affecting county litigation.
Minter said the first opinion reversed a Superior Court ruling in UGOCCC v. Damon Hoyte (Superior Court Case 23CV072) and reinstated the earlier magistrate court decision that found Hoyte guilty of violating a section of the county zoning ordinance in 2022. According to the attorney’s report, the superior court had previously ordered the county to return fines collected from Hoyte; the Court of Appeals has now reversed that superior court judgment and restored the magistrate court’s original ruling.
Separately, Minter reported that in Melissa Haymond v. Hoyte — a case in which the county is a co‑defendant — the Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court’s denial of Ms. Haymond’s motion to dismiss, vacated that denial and remanded the matter to Superior Court. The county retains a pending motion to dismiss in that case as well, Minter said.
The attorney’s summary did not include post‑opinion filings or any new orders by the Superior Court; Minter described the report as factual updates on recent appellate actions. The board did not take any votes on those cases at the meeting.
Why it matters: one of the appellate decisions involves a sitting commissioner (Damon Hoyte) and touches on fines and enforcement of the county’s zoning ordinance, and the other ruling leaves a civil case with the county subject to further proceedings in Superior Court. Both outcomes could affect future litigation strategy and potential financial exposure for the county.
Next steps: the attorney said the county’s pending motions in Superior Court remain active; no additional actions or votes were taken at the Oct. 7 meeting. The board later approved the Oct. 7 minutes at its Nov. 4 meeting.
