What have you Heard?

It started with a rational, and obvious, question before we started looking a little closer to separate rumor from truth ... and it's still kinda murky.

But, as I noted yesterday, there is much to learn from Powell v. Handel when it comes to how the state might potentially handle residency challenges from here on out. That case broadened the scope of what helped determine residency and sorted out the apparent conflicting natures of two portions of state code ...

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-217(14):
"The specific address in the county or municipality in which a person has declared a homestead exemption, if a homestead exemption has been claimed, shall be deemed the person's residence address."

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-217(15):
"Nonetheless, this statute is not solely determinative of the outcome. The court may consider other residency evidence, such as where the person receives mail, and any other evidence that indicates where the person resides in making its conclusion."

The state has long placed its primary emphasis on where the homestead exemption is utilized, and, in fact, its what Handel built her case around against Powell. During the 2004 residency challenge, Heard built his argument around the fact that he intended for his homestead exemption to be placed on his Athens home and that only an inadvertant error had resulted in an additional one being placed on his Fairburn property.

Powell's case, however, was built on a more forceful advancement of the other determining factors of residency rather than solely the homestead exemption, which Handel asserted was final. There was an attempt, then, to make those other pieces of evidence more valuable than merely the location of the exemption.

And it worked. An Administrative Legal Judge accepted the argument, as did a pair of state courts.

So, hypothetically speaking, how would that apply now?

The 2004 ruling, as noted, was decided utilizing the pre-Powell v. Handel standards. The incorporation of other determining factors could make a residency challenge against Heard more likely.

What appears to be more crucial now is intent of residency, and that can be determined, by in large, by the volume of time an individual spends at his or her current residence. In Powell v. Handel, the ALJ found that in order to verify residence 'the party must demonstrate physical presence and intent to remain permanently.'

Certainly, there is ample circumstantial evidence to validate a challenge under these new standards. The value and size of Heard's Fairburn property is significantly more than that of his Athens-Clarke County property, thus suggesting a more logical place for permanent residence for a family of four. His wife is employed full-time in Norcross, while, by his own acknowledgement, he works three months out of the year in Atlanta. By all accounts, his marriage is a sound one, thus suggesting little evidence the two would therefore willingly spend more than three-fourths of the year apart.

Heard, who previously listed himself as the CEO of The Heard Group, LLC, apparently no longer holds that title (though the office used his Athens home as its principal address).

In order to further verify intent, there are other vital components that folks ought to know ...

Where does Heard receive most of his mail, professional and personal?

In which counties has he registered vehicles?

Where does he spend a majority of his time (i.e. 50 percent plus one)?

Where are his children enrolled in school?

To extrapolate from the ALJ's ruling, in which community is Heard more involved, Athens or Fairburn?

Moving forward from that point, there would be additional information to evaluate if the persistent rumors that have circulated throughout are just that or if there is something more to them.