Housing Authority of the City of Augusta v. Gould
305 Ga. 545
Ga.2019Background
- Gould received a Section 8 voucher from the Housing Authority of the City of Augusta; after an inspection the Authority determined her unit failed housing-quality standards and moved to terminate assistance.
- Under the Authority’s administrative plan, Gould needed a landlord "zero-balance" letter to obtain voucher approval for a move; landlord refused, and the Authority terminated Gould for failing to meet family obligations and to submit required documents.
- Gould requested an informal hearing under the Authority’s plan and federal Section 8 regulations; a hearing officer upheld termination.
- Gould petitioned the Superior Court for a writ of certiorari to review the hearing officer’s decision; the Superior Court vacated the writ and dismissed, concluding the hearing decision was administrative (not quasi-judicial).
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the hearing decision was quasi-judicial and thus reviewable by certiorari; the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether certiorari reaches Section 8 informal-hearing decisions.
- The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the hearing officer’s decision was not final, binding, and conclusive in the manner required for certiorari review, so the writ does not lie.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a superior-court writ of certiorari lies to review a Section 8 informal-hearing decision | Gould: the hearing officer’s decision was quasi-judicial (notice, hearing, evidentiary process, preponderance standard) and therefore reviewable by certiorari | Housing Authority: the informal hearing is administrative/Goldberg-type due-process procedure, not a quasi-judicial proceeding subject to certiorari | Held: writ does not lie; hearing decision lacks the requisite final, binding, conclusive character of a quasi-judicial act, so certiorari jurisdiction is absent |
| Whether the Section 8 regulations confer an individual, enforceable right to the specific procedures (e.g., preponderance standard) that would make the process quasi-judicial | Gould: federal regs entitle participants to the regulatory procedures, making the hearing quasi-judicial | Housing Authority: Goldberg due-process rights exist, but the additional regulatory procedures do not necessarily create a judicial right enforceable in Georgia certiorari or under § 1983 | Held: Court declines to decide definitively whether regs create such a right; notes serious doubt whether regulatory procedures create enforceable individual rights and finds the Court of Appeals erred by not addressing the threshold rights question |
| Whether the informal hearing decision is "final, binding, and conclusive" (quasi-judicial third indicia) | Gould: hearing officer’s written decision resolving facts by preponderance is final enough to be quasi-judicial reviewable | Housing Authority: agency retains power to accept, modify, or disregard the hearing decision; decision is part of an administrative, nonfinal process | Held: decision is not final, binding, and conclusive—the agency can disregard hearing decisions, there is no required notice/hearing before that agency determination, no fixed timeline, and recipients are not bound—so the decision is not quasi-judicial for certiorari purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (constitutional due process requires notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard before termination of welfare benefits)
- City of Cumming v. Flowers, 300 Ga. 820 (Ga. 2017) (certiorari review extends to quasi-judicial acts of local government)
- South View Cemetery Assn. v. Hailey, 199 Ga. 478 (Ga. 1945) (defines judicial vs. quasi-judicial acts; parties entitled to notice and hearing under judicial forms)
- Jackson v. Spalding County, 265 Ga. 792 (Ga. 1995) (quasi-judicial decision-making: fact-finding and application of legal standards)
- City of Atlanta v. Blackman Health Resort, 153 Ga. 499 (Ga. 1922) (finality and res judicata effect as indicia of quasi-judicial acts)
- Yarbrough v. Decatur Hous. Auth., 905 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2018) (discussion whether Section 8 regulations create enforceable individual rights; concurrence questioning regulatory rights-creation)