GOULD v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF AUGUSTA.
343 Ga. App. 761
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Carrie Gould received a Section 8 voucher from the Augusta Housing Authority (AHA) and rented a home; AHA later determined the unit failed inspection and moved to terminate payments to the landlord.
- AHA required a landlord "zero balance" letter before issuing new vouchers; Gould's landlord refused, and AHA terminated Gould for failing to comply with family obligations and document requirements.
- Gould requested an "informal hearing" under AHA's administrative plan and HUD regulations (24 C.F.R. § 982.555); she was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and the hearing officer upheld termination.
- Gould petitioned the superior court for a writ of certiorari under OCGA § 5-4-1(a) to review the hearing officer's decision; the superior court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and Gould appealed.
- The Court of Appeals held the hearing officer acted in a quasi-judicial capacity (notice, opportunity to present evidence, findings based on preponderance), so certiorari review was available and the superior court erred in dismissing the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a writ of certiorari lies to review AHA hearing officer's decision | Gould: hearing was quasi‑judicial (notice, hearing, evidence, findings) so certiorari proper | AHA: hearing was administrative; superior court lacks jurisdiction | Held: certiorari lies; hearing was quasi‑judicial and reviewable |
| Whether the hearing was quasi‑judicial or administrative in nature | Gould: hearing provided judicial forms (cross‑examination, discovery, preponderance standard) | AHA: hearing officer acted under AHA authority and decision can be non‑binding, so administrative | Held: hearing was quasi‑judicial because officer made factual findings and applied legal standards and decision was operative/final here |
| Whether AHA's ability in limited circumstances to refuse to be bound by hearing decisions renders those hearings non‑judicial | Gould: irrelevant here because AHA did not invoke that authority; decision was operative | AHA/Dissent: potential for non‑binding review means hearings are not final and are administrative | Held: hypothetical reversal power not present here; because decision was final and binding, certiorari review appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Mack II v. City of Atlanta, 227 Ga. App. 305 (distinguishing quasi‑judicial from administrative functions)
- City of Cumming v. Flowers, 300 Ga. 820 (hearing that made binding factual/legal determinations is quasi‑judicial)
- Wolfe v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga., 300 Ga. 223 (discussing when agency hearing decision is the operative decision)
- Laskar v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga., 320 Ga. App. 414 (faculty committee recommendation held administrative because final decision rested with president)
- What It Is, Inc. v. Jackson, 146 Ga. App. 574 (board that only recommended action to mayor was administrative)
- Se. Greyhound Lines v. Ga. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 181 Ga. 75 (final act determines nature of prior inquiry)