Fennelly v. Lyons

Court of Appeals of Georgia
333 Ga. App. 96, 775 S.E.2d 587 (2015)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A landlord who obtains a writ of possession and follows all legal requirements for its execution cannot be held liable in tort for the eviction or disposal of property, on the sole basis that the writ was later vacated.

Facts:

Samuel Lyons leased a residential property to William Fennelly, which was later amended to a month-to-month agreement.
On July 12, 2012, Lyons sent Fennelly a notice via certified mail to vacate the property by August 15, 2012; the notice misspelled Fennelly's name.
While spending August in New Jersey, Fennelly sent a letter dated August 18, 2012, informing Lyons he planned to vacate in late September.
Lyons testified that he did not receive Fennelly's letter until after the eviction had occurred.
On September 17, 2012, Lyons, accompanied by a deputy sheriff, executed a writ of possession at the property.
Lyons hired a moving company to place all of Fennelly's personal property in the driveway of the residence.
After 24 hours had passed and the property remained in the driveway, Lyons began disposing of it by donating it to charity or having it hauled away.

Procedural Posture:

Lyons filed an affidavit for a summons of dispossessory against Fennelly in magistrate court.
On September 6, 2012, the magistrate court issued a writ of possession to Lyons.
Fennelly filed a motion to reconsider in the magistrate court, which granted the motion and vacated the writ of possession on December 17, 2012.
Fennelly (plaintiff) then filed a new tort action against Lyons (defendant) in the trial court.
Lyons filed a motion for summary judgment on all of Fennelly's claims.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Lyons.
Fennelly (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, where Lyons is the appellee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a landlord face tort liability for an eviction and disposal of a tenant's property when the landlord acted in full compliance with a facially valid writ of possession that was subsequently vacated by the issuing court?

Opinions:

Majority - Dillard, Judge.

No. A landlord is not liable in tort for an eviction conducted in accordance with a writ of possession that was lawful at the time it was executed, even if the writ is later vacated. The court's reasoning is that Lyons fully complied with Georgia's statutory dispossessory procedures. He obtained a writ of possession, and crucially, followed OCGA § 44-7-55(c) by placing Fennelly's personal property on a portion of the landlord's property—the driveway—before it was deemed legally abandoned. This distinguishes the case from precedents where landlords failed to follow this step. The court establishes that a writ is lawful and enforceable until it is officially vacated, and actions taken in good-faith reliance on that valid court order do not become retroactively wrongful. To hold otherwise would undermine the orderly process of law by penalizing parties who rely on judicial orders.

Analysis:

This decision establishes a significant safe harbor for landlords in Georgia, clarifying that strict adherence to statutory eviction procedures protects them from tort liability even if the underlying writ is later invalidated for procedural defects. It solidifies the legal principle that a court order is valid and confers authority to act until it is officially set aside. The ruling effectively shifts the risk of judicial error from the party relying on the order to the party challenging it, underscoring the importance for tenants to promptly and correctly contest dispossessory actions before a writ is executed.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Fennelly v. Lyons (2015)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"