Central Bd. on Care of Jewish Aged, Inc. v. Henson, 44738

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Harold Sheats; QUILLIAN; PANNELL; EVANS; EVANS
• Citation: Central Bd. on Care of Jewish Aged, Inc. v. Henson, 171 S.E.2d 747, 120 Ga.App. 627 (Ga. App. 1969)
• Decision Date: 22 October 1969
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 44738,44738,1
• Parties: CENTRAL BOARD ON CARE OF JEWISH AGED, INC. v. Charles A. HENSON, Jr., et al

Page 747

171 S.E.2d 747

120 Ga.App. 627

CENTRAL BOARD ON CARE OF JEWISH AGED, INC. v. Charles A. HENSON, Jr., et al.

No. 44738.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Oct. 22, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 12, 1969.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 8, 1970.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Since the appellant is a purely public charity and meets the requirements of Code Ann. § 92-201, the property is tax exempt.

2. Where there is no certificate by the trial judge, the refusal to grant a motion for summary judgment is not subject to review by direct appeal or otherwise.

The appellant filed a petition in the Fulton Superior Court seeking to have its property declared tax exempt as a purely public charity. Both the appellees and the appellant filed motions for summary judgment. The facts revealed that: the appellant operates a home for elderly persons of the Jewish faith; the appellant acquired the home by charitable gift; the eligibility age is 65 years; however the average age of the residents as of early 1969 was 82.9 years; because of this fact the great majority of the residents continually require very considerable medical attention and nursing care; as a result of the great age and debility of the residents, it is necessary for appellant to devote a substantial portion of its resources to medical and nursing care; out of the total operating budget of the home, 36% is attributable to medical and nursing expenses, and 55% of the staff of the home are in the nursing department; medical care provided the residents is very substantial; there is a medical director on the staff of the home, and a nursing staff, and some 69 doctors and dentists in private practice contribute free services to residents of the home from time to time; hospital type services and facilities provided by the home include every type of hospital care except major surgery; the practice followed by appellant throughout the existence of the home has been to have each applicant for admission supply certain financial data; this information is evaluated and, on the basis of it, a monthly charge is made; there is no initial or entrance fee; the charge is based upon ability to pay and ranges from zero up to a maximum charge of $450; the residents make payments based upon ability to pay, but no applicant has ever been refused admission because of inability to pay; there are always residents who pay nothing or only nominal amounts; in 1967, eleven residents paid nothing; eight paid less than $50 per month and twelve paid between $50 and $100 per month; twenty-five paid the maximum; all residents, without regard to the amounts they pay, receive the full benefit of all available services; the rooms are alike and are assigned without reference to payment and such things as medical care are provided on the basis of need; the deficit has each year been made up by charitable contributions from individuals who approve the work of appellant, from the Jewish Welfare Fund, and from other organizations.

In regard to admission requirements the evidence showed that: 'a social study' is made on each applicant; each applicant must have a physical examination; each applicant must have been a resident of Georgia for at least one year; any person who misrepresents his financial condition may be discharged; the agreement of admissions provides for repayment if the patient is found to have assets or leaves an estate.

The trial court granted the appellees' motion for summary judgment and denied that of the appellant. The appellant appealed and the case is here for review.

Nall, Miller, Cadenhead & Dennis, Edward S. White, Haas, Holland, Freeman, Levison & Gibert, Hugh W. Gibert, Eplan & Young, Samuel L. Eplan, Atlanta, for appellant.

Harold Sheats, J. C. Murphy, Charles M. Lokey, Atlanta, for appellees.

QUILLIAN, Judge.

1. For the appellant to be tax exempt it must be purely charitable and public. Code Ann. § 92-201 (Ga.L.1943, p. 348; 1946, p. 12; 1947, p. 1183; 1955, pp. 262, 263; 1965, pp. 182, 183). See Code Ann. § 2-5404 (Ga.Const., Art. VII, Sec. I, Par. IV). 'A familiar meaning of the word 'charity' is almsgiving, but as used in the law it may include 'substantially any scheme or effort to better the condition of society or any considerable part thereof.' Wilson v. Independence First National Bank, 164 Iowa 402, 412, 145 N.W. 948, 952, Ann.Cas. 1916D, 481. "Charity,' as used in tax exemption statutes, is not restricted to the relief of the sick or indigent, but extends to other forms of philanthropy or public beneficence, such as practical enterprises for the good of humanity, operated at moderate cost to the beneficiaries, or enterprises operated for the general improvement and happiness of mankind.' 61 C.J. 455, § 505.' Tharpe v. Central Georgia Council, B.S.A., 185 Ga. 810, 813, 196 S.E. 762, 764, 116 A.L.R. 373.

The appellees contend that the home is not public because the applicants must meet certain requirements before they may be admitted. It is true that the requirements for admission limited the class of people who might enjoy the benefits of the home; however, to qualify as public it is not necessary that the home be open to the entire public. It is sufficient that it be open to the classes for whose relief it was intended. Trustees of Academy of Richmond County v. Bohler, 80 Ga. 159, 7 S.E. 633; Tharpe v. Central Georgia Council, B.S.A., 185 Ga. 810, 196 S.E. 762, 116 A.L.R. 373, supra. The requirements for admission in the case sub judice were not such as prevented the home from qualifying as public.

Neither would the fact that the residents paid rent according to their ability destroy the charitable nature of the institution. Brewer v. American Missionary Association, 124 Ga. 490,...