HJ Russell & Co. v. Manuel

Decision Date21 November 2003
Docket NumberNo. A03A1444.,A03A1444.
Citation590 S.E.2d 250,264 Ga. App. 273
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals
PartiesH.J. RUSSELL & COMPANY v. MANUEL.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Hall, Booth, Smith & Slover, Michael A. Pannier, Holly M. Miller, Atlanta, for appellant.

Charles F. Peebles, Norcross, for appellee.

BARNES, Judge.

H.J. Russell & Company ("Russell") appeals from the superior court's order finding it in contempt of a consent order entered in the magistrate court before transfer to the superior court. Although we affirm the superior court's finding that Russell was in contempt, we must vacate part of the punishment imposed as it exceeds the punishment authorized.

The record shows that Russell filed a dispossessory action against Cathy Manuel ("Manuel") for holding the premises "over and beyond the term for which they were leased to [her]." Manuel answered and counterclaimed for money damages based upon Russell's failure to repair. She subsequently amended her counterclaim to assert a personal injury claim based on Russell's failure to repair.

A mediation with the Fulton County Landlord/Tenant Mediation Project resulted in a "Consent Reset Order" that was signed by the parties as well as the magistrate judge. It specifically provides that "[t]he above agreement is hereby made the Order of this Court." The preprinted portion of this order states that "Landlord shall make the following listed repairs," and the following repairs were listed by hand:

all ceiling leaks/holes

water heater

running faucet in bath tub

clean mildew/mold from unit

replace water stained and damaged carpet.

Finally, the order states that the case was reset for a hearing on July 30, 2002, "to determine if the repairs have been done and if the funds shall be released to Landlord." On July 30, 2002, the magistrate court held a hearing and transferred the case to the superior court based upon the dismissal of the dispossessory action by Russell and an unidentified motion of the defendant that does not appear in the record before us.

After the transfer to superior court, Manuel filed a motion for contempt based on Russell's alleged failure to make the repairs listed in the consent order. The superior court held an evidentiary hearing and found Russell in wilful contempt of the magistrate court's order. At the hearing, Manuel called two expert witnesses who testified that they made two visits to Manuel's apartment and found high levels of mold contamination which has been linked to respiratory ailments. One of these witnesses also testified that he found a leaking pipe in the ceiling, and the faucet in the bathtub ran and could not be turned off. He also testified that he saw water leaking in the ceiling, and, although he saw that some repairs had been made to damage on the ceiling caused by water, he saw no evidence that the leaks themselves had been repaired. The other witness testified that he found a leak in the bathroom floorboard. In the opinion of these experts, the leaks should have been repaired first, and then the drywall and carpets should have been replaced.

Manuel testified that she asked Russell's workers to replace the carpets, but they refused, and that after Russell's work the faucets continued running and mold was still present in the kitchen and bathroom. She also testified that she asked Russell to make additional repairs, but Russell's maintenance man said nothing could be done.

At the hearing Russell relied upon the testimony of its maintenance supervisor at the apartments. He testified that Russell repaired and applied mildew remover to the ceilings, painted the ceilings, repaired the leaking faucet, and had a contractor clean the carpet. He denied that the pipes continued to leak and denied that Manuel continued to complain about the mold.

The superior court apparently did not find Russell's witness credible and found that Russell had not made the repairs required by the consent order. Consequently, the court found Russell in contempt.

1. Russell first asserts that the magistrate court's order is void because it lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to provide equitable relief, i.e., ordering Russell to perform repairs. Russell argues that we must therefore reverse the superior court's order finding it in contempt, because an order which is void for lack of jurisdiction cannot form the basis of a contempt proceeding. See In re Estate of Adamson, 215 Ga.App. 613, 451 S.E.2d 501 (1994). We disagree.

OCGA § 15-10-2 provides that a magistrate court "shall have jurisdiction and power over ... [t]he issuance of summons, trial of issues, and issuance of writs and judgments in dispossessory proceedings and distress warrant proceedings as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of Chapter 7 of Title 44." Articles 3 and 4 of Title 44 relate to dispossessory and distress warrant proceedings. See OCGA §§ 44-7-50 et seq.; § 44-7-70 et seq. OCGA § 44-7-53(b) authorizes a magistrate court to try a contested dispossessory case, and OCGA § 44-7-55 outlines the following judgments that can be obtained:

(a) If, on the trial of the case, the judgment is against the tenant, judgment shall be entered against the tenant for all rents due and for any other claim relating to the dispute. The court shall issue a writ of possession, both of execution for the judgment amount and a writ to be effective at the expiration of seven days after the date such judgment was entered, except as otherwise provided in Code Section 44-7-56.

(Emphasis supplied.) And,

(b) If the judgment is for the tenant, he shall be entitled to remain in the premises and the landlord shall be liable for all foreseeable damages shown to have been caused by his wrongful conduct. Any funds remaining in the registry of the court shall be distributed to the parties in accordance with the judgment of the court.

Based on these provisions, subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint and counterclaim clearly rested with the magistrate court. The issue we must resolve is whether the magistrate court had the power to order a remedy agreed to by the parties in mediation, so that the violation of the court order might be punishable by contempt.

Although our constitution provides that superior courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction of equity cases, Ga. Const., Art. VI, Sec. IV, Par. I, we do not find this to be an equitable case. OCGA § 44-7-55(a) provides that "judgment [in a dispossessory action] shall be entered against the tenant for all rents due and for any other claim relating to the dispute." (Emphasis supplied.) The statute "intends for all related claims...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Martinez v. Housing Authority
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 21 de novembro de 2003
    ...on Martinez's behalf, not about any private communications he had with her. The trial court did not err in admitting his testimony. [ 590 S.E.2d 250] 5. Martinez argues that the court erred in denying her motion to disqualify the Housing Authority's trial counsel, G.E. Massafra, and in proh......
  • Hall v. Christian Church of Georgia, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 28 de junho de 2006
    ...the issue under the standards of awards pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14, and to enter an award, if appropriate. H.J. Russell & Co. v. Manuel, 264 Ga.App. 273, 276(3), 590 S.E.2d 250 (2003); Wyatt v. Hertz Claim Mgmt. Corp., 236 Ga.App. 292, 293(2), 511 S.E.2d 630 Further, "in cases involving OCG......
12 books & journal articles
  • 1 Small Claim Cases
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Benchbook 2023 edition
    • Invalid date
    ...in inducement claim)]. e. Enforcement of consent repair order in dispossessory OK and not equitable despite affirmative acts demanded [264 Ga.App. 273 , 5 90 SE2d 250 (2003)]. 5. Declaratory judgments [OCGA 9-4-2; 178 Ga.App. 197, 342 SE2d 380 (1983)]. 6. Examples of additional statutory pr......
  • 1 Small Claim Cases
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Benchbook 2022 edition
    • Invalid date
    ...in inducement claim)]. e. Enforcement of consent repair order in dispossessory OK and not equitable despite affirmative acts demanded [264 Ga.App. 273 , 5 90 SE2d 250 (2003)]. 5. Declaratory judgments [OCGA 9-4-2; 178 Ga.App. 197, 342 SE2d 380 (1983)]. 6. Examples of additional statutory pr......
  • 1 Small Claim Cases
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Benchbook 2016 edition
    • Invalid date
    ...in inducement claim)]. e. Enforcement of consent repair order in dispossessory OK and not equitable despite affirmative acts demanded [264 Ga.App. 273 , 5 90 SE2d 250 (2003)]. 5. Declaratory judgments [OCGA 9-4-2; 178 Ga.App. 197, 342 SE2d 380 (1983)]. 6. Other miscellaneous statutory provi......
  • 2 Landlord|Tenant
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Benchbook 2018 edition
    • Invalid date
    ...531; (2014)]. E. Magistrate Court has jurisdiction to sign and enforce consent agreement requiring repairs by landlord (not equitable) [264 Ga.App. 273, 590 SE2d 250 (2003)]. NOTE - If there was an equitable defense raised, you should attempt to direct any appeal to the superior court due t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT