Can a Plaintiff Substantially Comply with an Ante Litem Notice?
A personal injury victim filed a personal injury action against the City of Atlanta, which the trial court dismissed based on deficiencies in her ante litem notice. The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s order, arguing that she substantially complied with the notice requirements.
What is an Ante Litem Notice
An ante litem notice is a written document that’s required to be sent to a government agency prior to filing certain claims in Georgia. The term “ante litem” means “before a lawsuit.” This notice lets the government know about the claim and allows it the opportunity to investigate its potential liability and perhaps settle the issue before a lawsuit is filed. A plaintiff must follow the ante litem notice rules so that proper notice is given. The action may be dismissed if these rules aren’t followed.
O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5 governs the ante litem requirements, and pertinently provides:
(a) No person, firm, or corporation having a claim for money damages against any municipal corporation on account of injuries to person or property shall bring any action against the municipal corporation for such injuries, without first giving notice as provided in this Code section.
…
(f) A claim submitted under this Code section shall be served upon the mayor or the chairperson of the city council or city commission, as the case may be, by delivering the claim to such official personally or by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery.
Providing the ante litem notice in the manner required by the statute is a condition precedent to bringing suit on the claim. A challenge to the sufficiency of the ante litem notice provided in a given case may be properly raised in a motion to dismiss.
Victim did not include the correct address, the specific amount of monetary damages being sought, and the time of the incident
The plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the City, alleging that on August 31, 2023, she tripped and rolled her ankle due to cracks on the sidewalk while walking to a MARTA bus stop on Peachtree Road in Atlanta. Her ante litem notice, which was attached to her complaint and sent via certified mail, was addressed to “Mayor Andre Dickens, City Hall Tower, 55 Trinity Street, S.W., Suite 5000, Atlanta, GA 30303” and provided as follows:
- The name of the city government entity involved: City of Atlanta.
- Time: during the day.
- Place: on the sidewalk leading to the parking area of 2915 Peachtree Rd., Atlanta, GA 30305, as depicted in the attached photographs.
- The nature of loss suffered: a broken leg and pain throughout the body.
- Amount of Loss Claimed: the plaintiff is receiving ongoing treatment. She seeks to recover $500,000 for her medical bills, loss of income, pain and suffering in the past, present, and future, cost of future care, and all other damages permissible under Georgia law.
- The acts or omissions that caused the loss: the city failed to inspect and properly maintain the sidewalk.
The City filed its answer, asserting the failure to state a claim as an affirmative defense, and a motion to dismiss, alleging the plaintiff’s ante litem notice was defective. Specifically, the City argued that she failed to include the correct address, the specific amount of monetary damages being sought, and the time of the incident. The plaintiff opposed the motion, and the trial court summarily granted the motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the ante litem notice pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5. This appeal followed.
The victim’s ante litem notice contained the correct street address but the wrong suite number
In his opinion, Chief Judge E. Trenton Brown, III noted that the plaintiff’s ante litem notice contained the correct street address but the wrong suite number. The plaintiff served the ante litem notice to “Suite 5000” when the Mayor’s Office is in Suite 2400, which was reflected on the Notice of Claim form attached to her ante litem notice. Citing Fleureme v. City of Atlanta (2025), the plaintiff argued that she substantially complied with the ante litem statute despite the improper suite number. The panel disagreed.
Judge Brown opined that in Fleureme, the Supreme Court considered “whether the statutory requirement to serve an ante litem notice on ‘the mayor’ may be satisfied by mailing to the correct mailing address a notice that is addressed to the ‘Office of the Mayor, rather than to the mayor by name.” Reflecting on the statute, the Supreme Court explained that its purpose is to ensure that “a municipality knows about a potential tort claim and has a chance to settle it before a lawsuit is filed.” Accordingly,
Subsection (f), the service requirement, must be read in light of this focus on giving the “governing authority” notice of a claim and a chance to resolve it. Read in that way, the service requirement can only reasonably be understood as a requirement that specifies how to get notice to the governing authority.
The Supreme Court held that “a plaintiff suing a municipality may satisfy the service requirement for the ante litem notice by mailing the notice to the address where the mayor works and addressing it to the ‘Office of the Mayor.’” The Fleureme Court further explained that although “substantial compliance means that ‘absolute exactness need not be had,’ it still requires ‘substantive’ compliance with the statute. A notice that is not even calculated to be ‘delivered’ to the office of the officials expressly specified in subsection (f) would not substantially comply with its service requirement.”
In light of this, the Court of Appeals panel rejected the plaintiff’s argument that Fleureme authorizes the delivery of the ante litem notice to the correct street address but the wrong suite number, as such a notice isn’t calculated to be delivered to the official specified in O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5(f).
The judgment was affirmed. Jones v. City of Atlanta, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 268, 2026 LX 222063, 2026 WL 1551551 (Ga. App. June 2, 2026).
Free Consultations
Having a knowledgeable Atlanta personal injury lawyer who has experience handling cases against government entities does matter. Whoever you hire as your lawyer needs to know the law and how to apply the law—especially exact rules and procedures like the ante litem notice. If you have questions about your case, we invite you to call us at (404) JUSTICE or email us by following this link: https://www.tobininjurylaw.com/contact-us/.