Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Whole Life Center Church v. Dade County Board of Tax Assessors

Court of Appeals of Georgia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A25A1526

• Disposition: Affirmed

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed

Combined Opinion

FIRST DIVISION
BROWN, C. J.,
BARNES, P. J., and WATKINS, J.

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

March 16, 2026

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A25A1526. WHOLE LIFE CENTER CHURCH v. DADE
COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS.

WATKINS, Judge.

Whole Life Center Church (“WLCC”) appeals from the trial court’s dismissal

of its appeal of a decision of the Dade County Board of Assessors (the “Board”) to

deny WLCC’s application for exemption from ad valorem taxation. The trial court did

not reach the merits of the case but rather dismissed the case with prejudice because

WLCC did not retain counsel for the hearing after it was instructed to do so. Because

the non-lawyer who appeared on behalf of WLCC was not authorized to represent the

organization in superior court, we affirm.

The record establishes that WLCC is an unincorporated organization. Aron

Benjamin Goins, the minister and managing director of WLCC, submitted an
application for ad valorem tax exempt status to the Board. The Board denied the

property tax exemption on May 9, 2024,1 for two reasons: (1) WLCC did not have

501(c)(3) status as an exempt religious organization from the IRS; and (2) all of the

property was not open to the public, rendering WLCC a private organization. WLCC

, through Goins, filed its appeal the next day, selecting the option to appeal directly

to the superior court rather than to the Board of Equalization.2 The Board

acknowledged receipt of the appeal and scheduled a settlement conference, which was

a requirement for the Board to certify the appeal to the superior court. WLCC then

submitted a draft petition for review to the Board outlining its position prior to

arbitration, in which it stated it was a private, unincorporated church.

The Board certified the appeal, and WLCC, through Goins, filed its petition for

review in the superior court against the State of Georgia on July 12, 2024. Goins

1
The 2024 property statement sent to WLCC showed an amount due of
$1,035.69, which included $700.30 in back taxes.
2
A layperson is expressly authorized to appear on behalf of another before the
Board. OCGA § 48-5-311(e)(6)(A) (“A taxpayer may appear before the board of
equalization concerning any appeal in person, by his or her authorized agent or
representative, or both.”); see also OCGA § 48-5-311(g)(2) (“A taxpayer may appear
for the settlement conference in person, by his or her authorized agent or
representative, or both.”). Conversely, the statute makes no provision for a taxpayer
to appear in superior court through an “authorized agent or representative[.]”
2
identified himself as the “Attorney (pro se) for Petitioner” in the petition for review

and as the “pro bono attorney for my church” in a separate pleading filed in the trial

court in August 2024. The trial court set a hearing for December 19, 2024, and

counsel for the Board filed a notice of special appearance on its behalf.3 At the hearing,

the trial court advised Goins that as a non-lawyer, he could not legally represent

WLCC. The court continued the hearing to February 20, 2025 in an order dated

January 6, 2025, to allow WLCC to obtain counsel. At the hearing in February, WLCC

appeared again via Goins without counsel, and the trial court entered a final order

dismissing the case with prejudice. No transcript of evidence or proceedings was

included in the record.

1. WLCC contends that the trial court erred in dismissing its complaint for

failure to obtain counsel. We disagree.

It appears that our appellate courts have not previously spoken on the ability of

a layperson to represent an unincorporated organization in a court of record, but we

hold that such is unauthorized. In the case of Eckles v. Atlanta Technology Group, Inc.,4

3
The record does not include the transcript from the hearing.
4
267 Ga. 801 (485 SE2d 22) (1997).
3
when establishing that a corporation may only be represented by an attorney in a court

of record, our Supreme Court stated that if a layperson were to do so he or she would

be “clearly engaged in the practice of law in a representative capacity.”5 The Supreme

Court acknowledged that “problems ... are likely to arise when a layman serves as the

legal representative for a corporation in a proceeding in a court of record[.]”6 Just as

“[n]atural persons with no license to practice law are not permitted to act as

‘attorneys’ and represent other natural persons in their legal affairs[,]” the Supreme

Court held that “non-attorney agents are not allowed to represent corporations in

litigation, for a wholly unintended exception to the rules against unauthorized practice

of law would otherwise result.”7

Eckles is expressly limited to corporations, but its reasoning applies with equal

force to unincorporated associations.8 Permitting Goins to represent WLCC would

5
Eckles v. Atlanta Tech. Grp., Inc., 267 Ga. 801, 804 (2) (485 SE2d 22) (1997).
6
Id. at 803-804 (2).
7
Id. at 804-805 (2) (citation and punctuation omitted).
8
The cases of Largo Villas Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Bunce , 279 Ga. App. 524 (631
SE2d 731) (2006) and Hicks v. Khoury, 283 Ga. 407 (658 SE2d 616) (2008), cited by
the dissent, do not change the analysis. Dicta contained in a footnote in Largo Villas
provides “that the ruling of Eckles does not apply to unincorporated associations[.]”
279 Ga. App. at 525, n. 2. We are not bound by dicta because “obiter dicta lack[s] the
4
permit him to represent the interest of individuals other than himself. This is wholly

incompatible with the criminalization of the unauthorized practice of law.9

“It is the creation and regulation of the State Bar of Georgia, through the

decisions and orders of [the Supreme Court of Georgia], that now constitute the

exclusive means of governing the practice of law in Georgia.”10 In the absence of

force of an adjudication because it was a statement in an opinion concerning some rule
of law or legal proposition not necessarily involved nor essential to determination of
the case in hand.” Zepp v. Brannen, 283 Ga. 395, 397 (658 SE2d 567) (2008) (citations
and punctuation omitted). Moreover, it is a correct statement of the law.
Undisputedly, Eckles is binding precedent only with regard to corporations. Moreover,
any reliance on the case of Hicks is likewise unavailing. Although in that case an
unincorporated association pursued a mandamus petition without counsel, the issue
of the need for legal representation was not presented. “Questions which merely lurk
in the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are not to
be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents.” Wolfe v. Boards
of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 300 Ga. 223, 231 (2)(d) (794 SE2d 85) (2016)
(citation and punctuation omitted).
9
See OCGA § 15-19-51
It shall be unlawful for any person other than a duly licensed attorney at
law ... [t]o practice or appear as an attorney at law for any person other
than himself in any court of this state or before any judicial body[.] ...
Unless otherwise provided by law or by rules promulgated by the
Supreme Court, it shall be unlawful for any corporation, voluntary
association, or company to do or perform any of the acts recited in
subsection (a) of this Code section.
10
Eckles, 267 Ga. at 804 (2).
5
explicit direction from the Supreme Court of Georgia that a layperson can represent

an unincorporated association in a court of record, we will not stray from the principle

that such would constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Accordingly, the trial

court did not err in dismissing WLCC’s suit.

1. WLCC further contends that the trial court erred in making the dismissal be

with prejudice. This is of no consequence. “A dismissal with prejudice operates as an

adjudication on the merits. It is a final disposition. It bars the right to bring another

action on the same claim or cause.”11 Even if the trial court dismissed WLCC’s suit

without prejudice, WLCC was nonetheless time-barred from seeking continued

review of the Board’s decision as all of the deadlines in the review process have

11
Marchman & Sons, Inc. v. Nelson, 251 Ga. 475, 477 (306 SE2d 290) (1983).
6
passed.12 “An appellant must show harm as well as error to prevail on appeal; error to

be reversible must be harmful.”13

1. In light of our disposition in Divisions 1 and 2, we do not reach WLCC’s

other claims of error.

Judgment affirmed. Barnes, P.J., concurs; Brown, C. J., dissents.

12
See e.g., OCGA § 48-5-311(g)(2) (“If at the conclusion of the settlement
conference the parties cannot reach an agreement, then written notice shall be
provided to the taxpayer that the filing fees for the superior court must be paid by the
taxpayer by submitting to the county board of tax assessors a check, money order, or
any other instrument payable to the clerk of the superior court within 20 days of the
date of the conference.”).
13
In re Wilson, 374 Ga. App. 326, 328 (912 SE2d 354) (2025) (citation and
punctuation omitted).
7
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A25A1526. WHOLE LIFE CENTER CHURCH v. DADE
COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS

BROWN, Chief Judge, dissenting.

I must respectfully dissent to the majority’s holding that an unincorporated

organization must be represented by an attorney in a court of record. Although it is

clear that in Eckles v. Atlanta Tech. Group, our Supreme Court held that a corporation

must be represented by a licensed attorney in a court of record, id. at 804–05(2), the

Court also expressly emphasized that its holding “[was] applicable to corporate

representation only and that all non-corporate business owners are completely

unaffected thereby.” Id. at 806(2). See also Largo Villas Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Bunce,

279 Ga. App. 524, 525 n.2 (631 SE2d 731) (2006) (“The rule of Eckles applies only to
corporations, and thus does not apply to unincorporated associations.”). In dicta, the

Eckles court explained that when a corporation “accept[s] the benefits of

incorporation, a corporation must also accept the burdens, including the need to hire

counsel to sue or defend in court. . . . A layman’s legal representation in a court of

record of another ‘person’ in the form of a separate corporate entity is all that is

proscribed by our holding today.” Id. at 805–06(2) (punctuation omitted). Here, the

trial court made a factual finding that WLCC was an unincorporated association. It

was not a separate corporate entity. As such, WLCC was not required to obtain an

attorney to appear in superior court. See generally Hicks v. Khoury, 283 Ga. 407 (658

SE2d 616) (2008) (representatives of unincorporated association filed a mandamus

petition against a county board of commissioners in the trial court). See also OCGA

§ 48-5-311(g)(2).

OCGA § 48-5-311(g)(1) authorizes taxpayers to “appeal decisions of the county

board of equalization, hearing officer, or arbitrator, as applicable, to the superior court

of the county in which the property lies.” The record shows that WLCC is the

taxpayer in this instance, and WLCC designated Goins to operate as its representative.

The law favors deciding tax appeals on the merits. See Fulton County Bd. of Tax

2
Assessors v. Layton, 261 Ga. App. 356 (582 SE2d 520) (2003). Accordingly, the trial

court’s dismissal of the action for WLCC’s failure to retain an attorney was

erroneous.

3