Tabitha Odell v. the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: February 12, 2026
• Docket: A25A1594
• Status: Published

Opinion

FIFTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, P. J., HODGES and PIPKIN, JJ.

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. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

February 12, 2026

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A25A1594. ODELL v. MAYOR & ALDERMEN OF SAVANNAH.

PIPKIN, Judge.

This case involves the sufficiency of a municipal ante litem notice. According

to the operative complaint filed against the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of

Savannah, on January 15, 2023, Tabitha Odell slipped and fell in a restroom at the

Savannah Civic Center and broke her leg. On March 13, 2023, she served a timely ante

litem notice on the city, which stated: “The claim for [Odell’s] injuries and damages

is not less than $1,000,000.00.” The trial court later granted the city’s motion to

dismiss on the ground that Odell had failed to comply with subsection (e) of the

municipal ante litem notice statute, which requires that the notice “include the

specific amount of monetary damages being sought from the municipal corporation” and states that “[t]he amount of monetary damages set forth in such claim shall

constitute an offer of compromise.” OCGA § 36-33-5(e). Odell filed a timely notice

of appeal.

Odell contends that the statement in her ante litem notice that the “claim for

[her] injuries and damages is not less than $1,000,000” substantially complied with

the requirements of OCGA § 36-33-5(e) and further that “had [the city] reasonably

accepted and submitted payment for the requested amount [of $1,000,000], this

meeting of the minds would have constituted a binding and enforceable settlement

agreement.” But this Court has repeatedly held that an ante litem notice stating that

the claimant seeks to recover “not less than” a specific amount of monetary damages

does not comply with OCGA § 36-33-5(e). See, e.g., Brandenburg v. City of Vidalia,

366 Ga. App. 51, 55–57(1) (880 SE2d 625) (2022); Davis v. City of Valdosta, 357 Ga.

App. 900, 901–02 (852 SE2d 859) (2020). And we have previously held that an ante

litem notice stating that the claimant seeks to recover “‘an amount not less than $1

million ... indicate[s] that the value of the claim is some unknown number above

$1,000,000 [, which] is too indefinite to constitute a binding offer of settlement.’”

Payton v. College Park, 368 Ga. App. 396, 398(1) (890 SE2d 278) (2023) (footnote

2 omitted), overruled on other grounds by Wasserman v. Franklin County, 320 Ga. 624,

649(II)(B)(2) n.14 (911 SE2d 583) (2025). Thus, the trial court properly granted the

city’s motion to dismiss due to Odell’s failure to comply with OCGA § 36-33-5(e).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment affirmed. McFadden, P. J., and Hodges, J., concur.