MORGAN COUNTY v. MAY (And Vice Versa)
305 Ga. 305 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning ordinance is unconstitutionally vague as applied if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair warning that specific conduct is forbidden, particularly when it is silent on a key aspect of regulation like rental duration and relies on ambiguous definitions.
Facts:
- Christine May built a vacation home in Morgan County.
- In 2008, May began renting the house to others, typically for periods of about one week.
- At that time, the County's zoning ordinance did not contain any specific language addressing rentals of any duration for properties in May's zoning district.
- The ordinance permitted "single-family detached dwellings" and defined "dwelling" as a structure "designed or used exclusively for residential purposes," but did not define "residential."
- The County maintained an unwritten practice of prohibiting rentals for fewer than 30 days while permitting rentals for 30 days or longer.
- In October 2010, Morgan County amended its zoning ordinance to explicitly prohibit "short-term rentals" for periods of fewer than 30 consecutive days.
- In August 2011, May rented her house for seven nights, which was consistent with her practice since 2008.
Procedural Posture:
- Morgan County issued Christine May a criminal citation for violating the amended zoning ordinance.
- The criminal proceeding was stayed while May pursued a separate civil lawsuit against the County, which was ultimately resolved in the County's favor on procedural grounds.
- After the criminal case was revived, May filed a motion to dismiss the citation, arguing her use was grandfathered because the original ordinance was unconstitutionally vague.
- The trial court initially denied the motion on other grounds, held a bench trial, and found May guilty.
- May appealed her conviction, and the case was ultimately remanded by the Court of Appeals back to the trial court with instructions to rule on the constitutional vagueness challenge.
- On remand, the trial court granted May's motion to dismiss the citation, finding the old ordinance unconstitutionally vague as applied.
- Morgan County (appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal order to the Supreme Court 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:
Is a zoning ordinance unconstitutionally vague as applied where it is silent on the permissible duration of residential rentals and its definitions do not provide a clear standard for a homeowner to determine that rentals of fewer than 30 days are prohibited?
Opinions:
Majority - Nahmias, Presiding Justice
Yes, the old zoning ordinance was unconstitutionally vague as applied to May's short-term rentals. A law must give a person of ordinary intelligence fair warning of what conduct is forbidden. The old ordinance was completely silent on the duration of rentals, offering no text to indicate that a week-long rental was prohibited while a month-long rental was permitted. The County's reliance on the term "residential purposes" is unpersuasive because the ordinance's definition of "dwelling" only required the structure to be "designed or used" for such purposes, and the building was designed as a residence. Furthermore, even if the "use" was controlling, the common meaning of "residence" does not provide a clear 30-day dividing line between a permanent residence and a "temporary sojourn." Because the old ordinance was too vague to prohibit May's rentals, her use was a lawful nonconforming use that was "grandfathered" and is not subject to the amended ordinance's explicit ban.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the due process principle that zoning laws, especially those carrying criminal penalties, must be clear and unambiguous. It serves as a warning to municipalities against relying on unwritten enforcement policies or broad, undefined terms to regulate property uses. The ruling solidifies the legal protection for property owners who establish lawful nonconforming uses under vague ordinances, preventing retroactive application of later, more specific prohibitions. This case will likely encourage local governments to amend their zoning codes to explicitly address modern property uses like short-term rentals rather than relying on outdated and ambiguous language.
