Mitcham v. Patterson
1950 Ga. App. LEXIS 1139, 61 S.E.2d 517, 82 Ga. App. 468 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord is not liable for statutory penalties for collecting rent in excess of a maximum rent ceiling when the rent collected was lawful at the time of collection, even if a subsequent administrative order retroactively lowers that ceiling for the same period.
Facts:
- A landlord rented a housing accommodation to a tenant after July 1, 1947.
- The first rent charged by the landlord and paid by the tenant was $11 per week.
- Under the governing Rent Regulation, for accommodations first rented after July 1, 1947, the maximum legal rent was the 'first rent' charged for the property.
- The tenant paid the landlord $11 per week for the period from September 5, 1949, to November 19, 1949.
- On November 15, 1949, the area rent director issued an administrative order concerning the property.
- The order decreased the maximum rent from $11 per week to $4 per week and stated this decrease was 'effective 12-30-48,' a date nearly a year prior to the order's issuance.
Procedural Posture:
- The tenant (plaintiff) filed an action against the landlord (defendant) in the Civil Court of Fulton County.
- The landlord filed a general demurrer, which is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a valid legal claim.
- The trial judge of the Civil Court sustained the landlord's demurrer, dismissing the tenant's case.
- The tenant appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Civil Court of Fulton County.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial judge's ruling in favor of the landlord.
- The tenant then appealed that decision 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 subsequent administrative order that retroactively decreases the maximum legal rent for a housing accommodation make a landlord liable for statutory penalties for rents collected before the order was issued, when those rents were legal at the time of collection?
Opinions:
Majority - Gardner, J.
No. A landlord is not liable for statutory penalties for collecting rent that was lawful at the time of collection, even if a government agency later issues a rent reduction order with a retroactive effective date. The Housing and Rent Act of 1947, under which the tenant sued, imposes penalties on a person who 'receives rent in excess of the maximum.' This is a penal statute that must be strictly construed. At the time the landlord collected $11 per week, the maximum legal rent was the 'first rent' charged, which was $11. Therefore, the landlord did not receive any rent in excess of the maximum rent that could lawfully be demanded at that time. To impose a penalty based on the order issued on November 15, 1949, would be to punish the landlord for an act that was not illegal when it was committed. Citing previous case law, the court holds that a subsequent order cannot make 'penal that which was not penal when done.'
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle against the retroactive application of penal statutes, even in the context of civil penalties like treble damages. It establishes that liability under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 is determined by the legality of the landlord's actions at the precise time of the rent collection, not by subsequent administrative re-determinations. This provides landlords with a degree of certainty, protecting them from liability for actions that complied with the law as it existed at the time. The ruling limits the power of administrative agencies to create retroactive liability and underscores the judiciary's role in strictly construing statutes that impose penalties.
