Lantz v. White
152 Ga.App. 389, 262 S.E.2d 640, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2936 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's notice for a tenant to vacate 'on or before' the lease termination date is a standard termination notice, not an offer to prorate rent for the final month. While a dispossessory action may be used to collect claims beyond rent, such claims are only recoverable if the underlying contract provision is unambiguous and complete.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs (landlord) and defendants (tenant) had a one-year lease agreement for an apartment, running from April 1, 1978, to March 31, 1979.
- The lease required monthly rent of $175.
- The lease provided that either party could terminate the agreement at the end of the term by giving 30 days' written notice.
- On February 28, 1979, the plaintiffs sent the defendants a letter stating they must 'vacate the apartment on or before' the lease termination date of March 31, 1979.
- The defendants moved out of the apartment on March 18, 1979, and returned the keys to the plaintiffs on March 20, 1979.
- The defendants had previously paid a $100 security deposit.
- The lease contained a provision for late charges and returned check charges that stated: 'If management elects to accept rent after the fifth day of each month a late charge of Ten Dollars (10.00). A Ten Dollar (10.00) charge for any checks returned to management by any bank.'
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs (landlord) filed a dispossessory warrant against the defendants (tenant) in a trial court.
- The plaintiffs sought possession, past rent of $175, a $50 late charge, a bad check charge, and previous dispossessory costs.
- The trial court found that the landlord's termination letter was an offer to prorate rent and held the defendants liable for only 20 days of rent.
- After applying the defendants' $100 security deposit, the trial court entered a judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $12.90 plus court costs.
- The trial court also denied the plaintiffs' claim for late charges, ruling that such damages could not be collected in a dispossessory action.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
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's notice for a tenant to vacate 'on or before' the lease termination date constitute an offer to prorate rent for the final month, and can the landlord recover late charges in a dispossessory action if the lease provision for such charges is ambiguous?
Opinions:
Majority - Quillian, Presiding Judge
No. A landlord's notice to vacate 'on or before' the lease termination date is not an offer to prorate rent, but late charges based on an ambiguous lease provision are not recoverable. The court reasoned that the landlord's notice was merely a standard termination in compliance with the lease terms, not an offer to modify the contract and prorate the final month's rent. Therefore, the tenants owe rent for the entire month of March. Regarding the other charges, the court found the trial judge erred in ruling that a dispossessory proceeding can only be used to collect rent, citing Georgia Code Ann. § 61-305(a), which allows for 'any other claim relating to the dispute.' However, the court ultimately upheld the denial of the late charges because the specific contract provision governing them was 'too ambiguous and incomplete to afford a basis for recovery.'
Analysis:
This decision clarifies two important aspects of Georgia landlord-tenant law. First, it establishes that standard termination language, such as 'on or before,' should not be construed as an offer to alter a tenant's obligation to pay rent for the full contractual term. Second, it affirms that while dispossessory proceedings have a broad scope to include claims beyond rent, the enforceability of those claims still depends on the clarity and completeness of the underlying contract. This reinforces the principle that courts will not enforce ambiguous or incomplete penalty or fee clauses, holding drafters to a high standard of clarity.
