Walker v. Housing Authority of Atlanta
1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 1888, 330 S.E.2d 729, 174 Ga. App. 585 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A tenant who presents evidence of a landlord's breach of the duty to repair may assert a counterclaim for damages in an action for unpaid rent. If the evidence supporting the counterclaim creates a material issue of fact, a directed verdict against the tenant is improper, as the tenant's damages may offset the rent owed and defeat the landlord's claim for possession.
Facts:
- McDaniel, a long-term tenant in an apartment complex owned by Glenn, began experiencing a severe rodent infestation in 1980 after nearby building demolition.
- The written lease agreement required Glenn to maintain the premises in a decent, safe, and sanitary condition and to repair defects within a reasonable time after notification.
- In 1980, McDaniel notified Glenn about the rats and requested action.
- Glenn's response was limited to providing 'glue balls' to catch the rats, leaving McDaniel with the task of killing them.
- McDaniel continuously informed Glenn that the problem persisted and requested that Glenn use rat poison and repair holes in her apartment walls to prevent the rats from entering.
- Glenn failed to take further action to resolve the infestation or repair the holes in the walls.
- As a result of the ongoing infestation, vermin damaged McDaniel's furniture, her family's clothing, and other personal property, forcing the family to live in unsafe and unsanitary conditions.
Procedural Posture:
- The landlord, Glenn, sued the tenant, McDaniel, in a Georgia trial court to recover possession of the apartment and unpaid rent.
- McDaniel filed a counterclaim against Glenn, seeking compensatory and exemplary damages for the landlord's breach of duty to repair the rodent-infested premises.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of evidence, the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the landlord, Glenn, for possession and $2,497.01 in rent.
- The trial court also directed a verdict against the tenant, McDaniel, on her counterclaims.
- McDaniel (appellant) 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 trial court err in granting a directed verdict for a landlord on claims for unpaid rent and possession, and against a tenant's counterclaims for damages, when the tenant has presented evidence that the landlord breached the contractual and statutory duty to repair, resulting in damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Benham, Judge
Yes. A trial court errs by directing a verdict when there is a conflict in the evidence on any material issue. Here, the tenant, McDaniel, presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding the landlord's breach of duty. McDaniel testified about the lease requirements, her repeated notifications to the landlord about the severe rodent infestation, the landlord's inadequate response, and the resulting property damage and unsanitary conditions. Under Georgia law, a tenant's remedies for a landlord's failure to repair include occupying the premises and holding the landlord responsible for damages, which can be recouped in an action for rent. Since McDaniel's potential damages could exceed the unpaid rent claimed by the landlord, a directed verdict for possession was also improper, as a verdict in her favor on the counterclaim could negate the landlord's claim.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that a lease contains mutual obligations, and a landlord's failure to maintain a habitable premises can serve as a basis for a tenant's counterclaim that directly offsets a claim for unpaid rent. It establishes that a tenant's testimony about unresolved hazardous conditions and property damage is sufficient to defeat a directed verdict, ensuring that such disputes are decided by a jury rather than being dismissed by a judge. The ruling empowers tenants by affirming that their claims for damages due to a landlord's negligence can be a potent defense against eviction proceedings based on nonpayment of rent, thereby encouraging landlords to comply with their duty to repair.
