COp8 COUNTY. GA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COBBEOUNTY.® PATE OF GEORGEN SEP 15S PH 359 SEAN TINTLE and SARA ELIZABETH BOWERS TINTLE, Plaintiffs, w THE CITY OF SMYRNA, GEORGIA, a Political Subdivision of the State of Georgia; and A. MAX BACO! of the City of Smyrna; MEL || PRITCHETT; ANDREA BLUSTI || TERT ANULEWICZ: CHARLES | WELCH; SUSAN WILKINSON; | WADE LNENICKA; and, RON FENNEL n their official capacities the Smyrna City Counei CIVIL ACTION stteno,_[5-/-73/2- aq ay Members of Defendants. COMPLAINT AND DE NOVO APPEAL COME NOW, SEAN TINTLE and SARA ELIZABETH BOWERS TINTLE | (hereinafter referred to as “Plainti!¥S") and file this theit Complaint against THE CITY OF | SMYRNA, GEORGIA. a Political Subdivision of the State of Georgia: and A. MAX BACON || as Mayor of the City of Smyrna; ME NY C, PRITCHETT; ANDRFA BLUSTEIN: TERI ANULEWICZ: CHARLES WELCH: SUSAN WILKINSON: WADE LNENICKA: and. RON FENNEL in their official capacities as Members of the Smyrna City Council. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”) and respectfully show in support thereof the following, to wit=| | | | | / | | | | | | | | | | | | PARTIES AND JURL DICTION 1 Plaintiffs are the Owners concerning certain real property located in the City of Smyrna, Georgia (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property”). Defendant, THE ITY OF MYRNA. GEORGIA. is a corporate body with the power to sue and be sued, is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Cow, and may be served by serving ‘A. Max Bacon, Mayor of the City of Smyrna, 2800 King Suvet. Smyrna. GA, 30080, pursuant to O.C.G.A. $9-11-4eW(5). The governing authority of THE CITY OF SMYRNA, said body being ual members of the § comprised of the Mayor and the indivi nyrna City Council. is vested with, the power to zone, to approve rezoning andl to approve amendments to rezoning for the City of Smyma, Georgia by virtue of Article IX. Section Il. Par ph V of the Georgia Constitution (1983), 4 Defendants A. MAX BACON, MELENY C. PRITCHETT. ANDREA, BLUSTEIN. TERT ANULEWICZ. CHARLES WELCLL SUSAN WILKINSON, WADI LNENICKA and RON FENNEL have been named as parties to this suit in their official capacities as the Mayor and City Couneil Members of The City of Syma. Georgia, are subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court and may be served with this action by serving them at 2800 Ki Suet, nyrna. Georgia 30080,| 1 | | | | | ‘The Subject Property cons of an approximate 3.61 acre tract of land within ‘The “ity of Smyrna, the principal address of which is 3744 Plumerest Road. 6 Plaintiffs submitted an Application for a Rezoning concerning the Subject Property to the City of Smyma, Georgia and received a des ation of No. 215-007 for the Application. 7 The Subject Property is subject to The City of Smyrna’s Code of Ordinances (hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”) and has been placed in the R-20 zoning and the terms and provisions of the Ordinance restriet the use of the Subject Property solely to those uses permitted under said classification. RB At the time of the filing of Plaintifis" Application for Rezoning. the Subject Property was subjected to the aforementioned zoning classification and had experienced a substantial number of changes rendering the Subject Property undesirable for the uses undet the R-20 classification % Prior to and contemporaneously with PlaintifTs" presentation at the publie hear belbre Defendants on September 8, 2015. the Defendants were placed on notice of certain constitutional infirmities as applied to the Subject Property. Thus, the Defendants were plaved onnotice that a denial of the application would be a violation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and that Plaintiffs would utter damages if said Application was denied. 10, Plaintifis sought in thei Application for Rezoning to rezone the Subject Property to the RAD-Conditional classification for the purposes of the development of a Single-Family Detached Residential Community consisting of a total number of fifteen (15) residences at a density of 2.67 units per aere. ul The Subject Property is located in an area in which the City of Smyrna’s Future Land Use Plan and Future Land Use Map (hercinatier collectively referred 10 as the “Plan”) ss than 3.00 unit nates as Suburban Residential (h per sere). contemplating the type of development proposed by the Plaintiff. 12, During the pendeney of the Application for Rezoning, the City’s Community Development Department, through the City’s professional staff, recommended that the Zoning Application be approved subject to certain stipulations/conditions which would become a part al the grant of the requested Rezoning and binding upon the Subject Property thereafter. 13. In addition to receiving favorable recommendations from the City’s pratessional staff. the Plaintiffs received a favorable recommendation from the City of Smyra’s Planning & Zoning Board on July 13. 201| 14. | The City of Smyrna’s Planning & Zoning Board included in the recommendation | far approval numerous stipulations/conditions, some of which were imposed by the Plains and | the balance of which were imposed by the City’s professional staff, 1 On September 8, 201 the Defendants heard Plaintiffs" presentation cons | their Applicaton for Rezoning and. in a split vote, voted 4-3 to deny the Application. The Defendants made such a denial with complete disregard of the findings of the City’s professional || statand the City’s Planning & Zoning Board and without regard to the stipulations‘conditions to which the Plaintiffs had voluntarily agreed. | 16. Ifthe Application for Rezoning had been approved as requested, the underlying | | fee, whieh comprises the Subject Property. would have a significant increase in value without | any development thereon, As presently zoned and restricted by application of the Ordinanee, the | || value ofthe Subject Property is substantially and unseasonably diminished in value, both in | relation to the requested development and in relation to other property in the general vieinity of | the Subject Property 17 Plaintif{S have a substantial interest in the use and development of the Subject Property and have invested substantial sums in said Property with a reasonable expectation of profit therefiom, | Misnisetit | | |18, Plains bs Within thirty (30) days from September 8, 201 this lawsuit seeking redress for the deprivation of their respective constitutional rights by the Defendants in continuing to unreasonably apply the Ordinance to the Subject Property. thereby restricting the | | Subject Property to uses which are not economically viable. 19. | Until the present Ordinance of The City of Smyma, Georgia is amended or | rescinded to authorize the development of the Subject Property for the uses sought by Plaintiffs, | the Defendants will continue to refuse to issue to Plain or their successors intitle the | | he essary certificates of zoning compliance and permits required by The Smyrma’s codes. rules |) and regulations in any manner other than as permitted under the present R-20 zoning classitication, 20. The present R-20 zoning classification is unreasonable and it substantially devalues the Subject Property by restricting its uses and constitutes a taking of Plaintitls” given by the Defendants to the Plaintif’ | 5 . | valuable property rights without just and adequate compensation having first been offered and | 21 | Defendants have refused and continue to refuse to pay to Plaintiffs just. adequate and reasonable compensation for the taking of their property i ot22. The present R-20 zoning classification of the Subject Property bears no reasonable relation to the protection of the health. safi or morals of The City of Smyrna, Georgia, PlaintiffS state that there will be no adverse impact to surrounding properties from the grantin of the requested Zoni | i | Ameneiment to the Subject Property and that no properties — | are lueated in such a manner as to be adversely allected by approval of the Rezoning as | requested by the Plaintiffs, i 24 | Plaintiffs state that the Rezoning requested by the Pkaintifis is in conformity with the City’s Future Land Use Plan and Future Land Map. 25, | | | | | | There is no benefit to the public trom the restriction of the Subject Property to the | present R-20 zoning classification whieh approaches the resultant detriment to Plaintfts | 26 Any public benelit as a result of the present restrietive zoning is speculative remote and unrelated by any reasonable relationship to the health, welfare, safety and morals of hts far outweighs any | the community. and the damage to the PlaimtiftS’ property and property tig such public benefit. if'any exists 27. i There is no immediate or future market for the Subject Property restricted to its present zoning classification of R-20 that would in any way approximate the value of similarlyvoned property within The City of Smyrna, Georgia or in the vicinity of the Subject Property Which is unaftected by the fuetors which make Plaintifis’ property undesirable. 28, Plaintiffs have been substantially damaged by the actions of the Defendants andl \will continue to suffer future damages for each «lay during whieh they are denied an economically viable use of the Subject Property as a result of the continued application of the present R-20 classification in an unconstitutional manner, Such damage will continue until the Ordinance i development of an economically viable use of the Subject Prope j ' rescinded, modified or amended and the required permits issued so as to permit | \ 2. | The construction and costs to develop. and the marketability of Plaintifts" | property will be severely and adversely affected by the delay of the Defendants in removing the | unconstitutional restrictions on the development of the Subject Property. | | 30, | | The Ordinance subjects Plainti!T$ to both civil and eriminal actions for any use of the Subject Property inconsistent with the present zoning al The Defendants have tailed or refused to work with Plaintifs in an effort wo establish zoning uses and conditions which would permit the economic development of the Plaintiff property for the highest. best and most appropriate use. By refusing to grant Plaintiffs” Application for Rezoning. the Defendants did not follow the guidelines outlined by the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia for the consideration || | | | | | { of the constitutionality of a zoning Ordinance as applied to the PlaintiftS" property and gave no ‘weight to those guidelines in their deliberations on the Plaintiffs" request for rezoning. As set forth above, Defendants have failed or refused to work with PlaintiitSs in an | effort to establish zoning Plaimtif¥S* property for its highest, best and most appropriate use. The City of Smyrna, Georgia und the applicable zoning maps. re; ulations and restrictions which place the Subject Property in its present classification of R-20 and restrict the uses thereof to the purposes set forth in said Ordinance for such clas ation are. as applied to the Subject Property, unconstitutional under the Constitution of the State of Georgia, null and void. 4 There b ¢ no valid ordinance. rule or regukation restricting the use of the Subject Property. Plaintiff have a common lave right w use the property for whatever purpose they desire. Plaintitls properly filed their Application for Rezoni seeking to rezone the Subject Property and properly pursued the statutory proceedings established by ‘The City of ‘Smyrna for Applications for Rezoning conceming the Subject Property 36. The Defendants were given an opportunity to rezone the property alter being placed on notice of the unconstitutionality of The City of Smyma, Georgia's Ordinance as applied to the Subject Property. and further afier rveeiving notice of all the fets andl circumstances which made the application of the Ordinance to the Subject Property 9. uses and conditions which would permit the eeonomie development of"| unconstitutional, the Defendants failed and refused to appropriately grant the requested Rezoning | concerning the Subject Property. 37. The decision of the Defendants to deny Plaintiff's reasonable uses as permitted by the Ordinance is final decision of the Defendants before any body empowered to act, reverse, modify or alter said decision. Therefore, all statutorily provided administrative action is final, and the procedure | | and there are no administrative remedies or procedures to review a | | | available for redress is remedial only, ‘The City of Smyma, Georgia's Ordinance isin derogation | of common law and should be strictly construed in its application in favor of Plaintilts for use of | tie Subject Property 38. | sone oF , | AS «result of the actions of the Defendants. PlaintiN's have been ireparably | damaged and the application of the Ordinance to the Subject Property will continue wf } ineparably damage Plaintitls | i} COUNT E: UNCO:! PUTIONAL 1 AKIN 39, The for, -going allegations contained in this entire pleading are incorporated herein by this reference as if repeated verbatim, 4. The refusal of the Defendants to appropriately approve the requested Rezonir of the Subject Property has deprived Plaintitls of constitutionally uaranteed property hts without just and adequate compensation and constitutes a violation of the rights and privileues -10-secured by Plaintifi’ by Article 1, aph | of the 1983 Constitution of the State of Geo: 4 Portions of The City of Smyma’s Ordinance and the applicable zoning maps which restrict the use of the Subject Property to the purposes set forth in suid Ordinance are. as upplied to the Subject Property. unconstitutional under the Constitution of the State of eoryia und null and void in that such provisions constitute a taking of Plaintiffs" property ‘The application of said zon jon to the Subject Property is the equivalent of a substantial destruction of Plaintiffs” valuable property tights and the property ‘without prior payment of just compensation as is required under the provisions of Antcle I. Scetion II, Paragraph | of the constitution of the State of Georgia of 1983 and under the =I provisions of OCGA. § Those portions of The City of Smyrna's Ordinance whieh prohibit the issuance of development permits where the proposed use is inconsistent with the existing zoning classification are unconstitutional under the Constitution of the State of Georgia and null and void as applied to the Subject Property because such restrictions elfeetively probibit Plaintiffs from developing or using the Subject Property for the only proposed se to whieh itis reasonably and economically suited, and thereby constitutes the equivalent of'a st destruction of the valuable property rights of Plaintiff without prior payment of just and adequate compensation, is= | an nome i 43 The continued application of the Ordinance provisions to the Plaindtis" property results in no gain to the public in general, fails to promote public concems, constitutes a substantial destruction of the property values of PlaintiflS, and is confiseatory and void, 44, Al the time of the taking of Plaintiffs" property. no adequate, reasonable or certain State provided statutory procedure for the seeking and obtaining of just compensation ‘was provided, 45. ‘The Constitution and laws of the State of Georgia provide and require that just and adequate compensation be paid prior to any taking or interference with the property rights of PlaintiftS, Accordingly. Plaintilis are entitled to judgment of this Court finding the taking Unconstitutional and requiring lull andl adequate compensation be tendered by Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, COUNT Hz ARBITRARY ND APRICIOUS DENIAL 46, The foregoing allegations contained in this entire pleading are incorporated herein by this reference as if repeated verbatim, 47. PlaintiftSs challenged the constitutionality of the Ordinance as applied tw the Subject Property before the Defendants, and offered evidence. reasons and information showing the changes that had taken place which prove the unconstitutionality of the Ordinance as appliedto the Subject Property. There was no competent evidence whatsoever presented to the {| | | | | Defendants that could in any manner justify the Defendants’ denial of Plaintiff" Application for | | Rezoning, Moreover. no attempt was made lo prove the constitutionality of the Ordinance as so | applied. | “ i i! The refusal of the Defendants to reclassify the Subject Property as requested by Plaintiffs unreasonably and unjustifiably restricts the use of said property and denies Plaintiffs an | economically suitable use and return on their investment and results in a substantial destruction of their valuable property rights through zoning or over-regulation by zonin 49. The refusal by the Defendants to reclassify the Subject Property as requested by | Plaintiffs so as to permit a reasonable, economic return on their investment and appropriate use of the Subject Property is unconstitutional under the Constitution of the State of Georgia and null arbitrary. cal aand void in that said refusal w: pricious. without rational basis and constitutes an | abuse of discretion which effectively restricts the property to a use to whieh it is unsuited Plaintif’s are entitled to a judgment of this Court striking the zoning classification as | nal award unconstitutional a :s in an amount to be detennined at trial appropriate dame; COUNT LACK OF UN! 30, The foregoing allegations vontained in this entire pleactin, are incorporated herein by this reference as if repeated verbatim,The act of the Defendants in refusing to rezone the Subject Property to permit an economically viable use was arbitrary, capricious. without rational basis. and for improper motives. thereby constituting a gross abuse of diseretion. 32. The Defendants have a custom and practice in their zoning hearings of receiving and considering oral and written statements made by persons who own no property which has any possibility of bein pecially or otherwise damaged by the rezonin: sought: considering the number of people opposing zoning applications: and. not restricting the debate. testimony or evidenee offered in opposition to the rezoning application so as to consider only those matters which are germane to the public welfare, morals, health and safety of the general community: Evidence submitted to the Defendants regarding PlaintifIS" Application for Rezoning was given consideration without submitting such evidence to Plaintiffs or their representatives for an opportunity’ to respond, rebut or contradict such evidence or to demonstrate how such evidence or information did not adversely affect the health, welfare, safety or morals of The City of 33, The City of Smyrna, Georgia’s Ordinance. at all times pertinent to this action. is unconstitutional under the Constitution of the State of Georgia. illegal. null and void in its substance and usage in that it did not require uniformity of application and is not and was not being uniformly applied to all persons or entities owning property situated in The City of Smyma, Georgia. PlaintiffS are entitled to 4 judgment of this Court stikin the zoning Sideclassification as unconstitutional and awarding appropriate damages in an amount 10 be determined at trial COUNT IV: The foregoing all herein by this reference as if repeated verbatim 34, NCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING BY TIME LIMITATION jons contained in this entire pleading are incorporated ‘The City of Smyrna, Georgia's Ordinance prohibits Plaintifis from again applying for a change in the present zoni (12) months. ‘That provision of the Ordinance amounts to a taking of Plainti* property without e classi ication of their property for « period of twelve first paying fair. just and adequate compensation in violation of the aforementioned constitutional provisions contained in the Georgia Constitution. Plaintifi judgment of this Court finding the taking unconstitutional and awardi ue entitled to a ull and adequate compensation in an amount fo be determined at tial The foregoing allegations contained in this entire pleading herein by this reference as if repeated verbatim, are incorporated The Defendants have rezoned similarly situated property in the immediate area near the Subject Property for the uses soi 1 in the PlaintiftS" Application for Rezoning.| | : | 38 | ‘The refusal of the Defendants to amend the Ordinance and the applicable zoni ‘maps to reclassify the Subject Property for uses other than those permitted under the present R-20 classification, diseriminates in an arbitrary. unreasonable, and capricious manner between the Plaintiff and owners of similarly situated properties in the immediate vicinity of the Subj Property. PlaintffS are entitled to a judgment of this Court striking the zoning classifieation as unconstitutional and awarding appropriate damages in an amount to be determined at trial The foregoing allegat jons contained in this entire pleading are incorporated herein by this reference as if repeated verbatim, | j j | | | | | | COUNTY i | | | | 60, The Defendants have aeted in bad faith, have been stubbomly litigious and have acted in such a manner as to entitle Plaintiffs to their costs. and expenses of litigation, including attorneys’ fees, PlaintifiS are entitled to a judgment against Defendants in an amount w be determined at tial COUNT VI ‘The foregoing allegations contained in this entite pleading are ineorporimed herein by this reference as if repeated verbatim. -16-|| 62, | | Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3, the Defendants? authority with respect 10 the | | | | | regulation and governance of PlaintifiS" use of the Subject Propemyy is limited to the adoption of ‘clearly reasonable ordinances. resolutions or regulations. .for which no provision has been made by general law and which are not inconsistent with the Constitution or any charter provisions applicable thereto.” | 63 j The Defendants’ adoption of its Ordinance. as applied to the Subject Property and its continued application of the present zoning classification thereto, is aud are violative of 3 in that, among other things. such Ordinance as applied to the Subjec tion oF R-20 of the | f || Property is unreasonable. Fusther, application of the present zoning elassitic Subject Property is violative of and inconsistent with the Constitution of the State of Georgia. Plaintitts | | | entitled to a judgment of this Court siriking the zoning classification as unconstitutional and awarding appropriate damages in an amount to be determined at trial COUNT VILL: IMPROPER DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE Al ‘THORITY 64. The foregoing allegations contained in this entire pleading are incorporated herein by this reference as it repeated verbatim, 65. The Defendants have de od their authority to reclassity property to the |) citizens at harge by basing their decision on political considerations and on whether there is vocal | opposition to a Rezoning request. ie | a || | 66. Specifically in this case. the Defendants delegated their legislative authority to rezone the Subject Property to citizens speaking in opposition to the request instead of making a legislative decision based upon the zoning guidelines as outlined by the Georgia Supreme Cour. Plaine fs are entitled to a judgment of this, Court striking the R-20 zoning classification as unconstitutional and awarding appropriate damages in an amount to be determined at tral WHEREFORE. the PlaintilTs pray for the following reliet a That Summons and process issue and that the Defendants be served as. required by Georgia kaww; b. That the Defendants be and appear before this Court to show cause. ona specially set date certain, why the prayers of Plaintiffs should not be granted e, That this Court declare that the Ordinance is unconstitutional under the Constitution of the State of Georgia. illegal. null and void as applied to the Subject Property and that it results in the taking of the Subject Property without just and adequate compensation: a That this Court declare that the Ordinance is unconstitutional under the Constitution of the State of Georgia. illegal. null and void as applied to the Subj ¢ Property and that it results in the takin {the Subject Property without due process of law: ¢. That this Court declare that the action of the Defendants and the procedures contained in the Ordinance for hearing zoning proceedings and evidence attendant thereto are arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious and. as a result, deny the PlaintitlS due process of kaw as g varanteed under the Constitution of the State of Georgia: 18.f ‘Phat this Court declare that the actions of the Defendants in refusing to reel ssif¥y the Subject Property as requested and in restricting its use to the present R-20 classitication are unconstitutional under the Constitution of the State of Georgia null and void: | g. That this Court declare that the action of the Defendants in reftwsing to | appropriately rezone the Subject Property was arbitrary. capricious. unreasonable, unconstitutional under the Constitution of the State of Georgia, and an abuse of discretion h That this Court declare that the actions of the Defendants have resulted in a denial of substantive and procedural due process of law to Plaintifts and has violated their rights to equal protection of the law. as guaranteed under the Constitution al'the State of Georgia: i That PlaintifYs be awarded judgment against the Defendants for the taking of their property until the Defendants rescind, amend or otherwise rezone the Subject Property 10 permit a constitutional use thereol'and a reasonable return-on the Plaintifis” investment i That Plaintiffs be awarded judgment for their costs and expenses of gation, ineluding attorneys’ fees and all casts of Court kK. ‘That this Court order the Defendants to reconsider the Application for Revoning as (led with the direction that the Defendants work with Plaintills wo allow Plaintifis the highest, best and most appropriate use of the Subject Property as required by luvv, and directing that the Defendants rezone the Subject Property to a constitutionally permissible classifications within thiny (30) days of the date of the Court's Order | rwelassitication of the Subject Property to a constitutionally permissible classification by the | | Defendants: | | 1 That this Court retain jurisdiction over this matter pending the | -19- | || | | | | | m That, in the event the Defendants fail or rel ise to comply with the provisions of this Coutt’s order and rezone the Subject Property to a constitutionally permissible use and elas ification within thirty (30) days of the date of this Coust’s ord this Court declare the Subject Property to be free and clear of all zoning restrictions. rules and regulations: applied to the Subject Property. to be inconsistent with and violative of O.C.G.A. § ‘That this Court find that ‘The City of Smyrna, Geo and that the Court, necordingly. nullify said zoning ordinance as upplied to the Subject Property: Property’s Application for Rezoning was an unconstitutional dele, That this Court find that the City’s actions in re and is therefore voids and lation to the Subject zation of legislative authority For such other and further relief as to the Court deems just, proper and appropriate under the facts and evidence presented. Respectfully submitted. 376 Powder Springs § Marietta, GA 30064 (770) 422-7016 treet, Suite 100 day of September, 2015. (s® SAMS. LARKIN. HUFF & BALLI. LLP. Georgia Bar No, 623950 Attorney for PlaintiftsIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COBB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA SEAN TINTLE and SARA ELIZABETH BOWERS TINTLE, Plaintiffs, THE CITY OF SMYRNA, GEORGIA, a Political Subdivision of the State of Georgia; and A. MAX BACON, as M: of the City of Smyrna; MELENY C. PRITCHETT; ANDREA BLUSTEIN; TERI ANULEWICZ; CHARLES WELCH; SUSAN WILKINSON; WADE LNENIC! NEL, in their officis jes as Members of the Smy CIVIL ACTION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) yor) FILENO, ) ) ) ) ) ) J ) ) Defendants. VERIFICATION Personally appeared before the undersigned. duly authorized to administer oaths, came SARA ELIZABETH BOWERS TINTLE, who, after bei “omplaint and De Nove and depose that the facts contained in the within and for and beliet Appeal are irue and correct to the best of his knowled: Further Affiant sayeth not, ELIaARt H BOWERS TINTLE Swom to and subseribed before me this (Dray of Aeptinnbion, 2015. g (0 stad phil ARY PUBL 2 duly swom, did sayIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COBB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA SARA ELIZABETH BOWERS TINTLE, Plaintifts, | | | | | SEAN TINTLE and j | | CIVIL ACTION Subdivision of the State of and A. MAX BACON, ay Mayor rma; MELENY C. FILE NO. nil, RON FENNEL jes as Members of ty Council, | WADE LNENICKA: | in their offi the Smyrna Defendants. | VERIFICATION Personally appeared before the undersigned, duly authorized to administer oaths, came SEAN TINTLE. who, after being duly sworn. did say and depose that the facts contained in the within and foregoing Complaint and De Novo Appeal are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief Further Affiant sayeth not, Sworn to and Pm before me this [OE Sha, ay ae ae