O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
A written statement prominently setting forth in bold type the time period during which a guest may occupy an assigned room, when separately signed or initialed by the guest, is a valid nonassignable contract. At the expiration of such time period, the guest may be restrained from entering such room and any property of the guest may be removed by the innkeeper to a secure place where the guest may recover his or her property without liability to the innkeeper, except for damages to or loss of such property attributable to its removal. If a guest vacates his or her room prior to the date contained in the written statement, that guest shall not be liable for charges for the time after the room is vacated unless the guest has agreed otherwise before occupying the room.
History
Code 1981, § 43-21-3.2, enacted by Ga. L. 1994, p. 498, § 1.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Extended-stay motel was not an innkeeper under O.C.G.A. § 43 - 21 - 3.2 and therefore could not avail itself of that statute to summarily evict residents for non-payment because this Code section
only referenced innkeepers and not apartment hotels. Efficiency Lodge, Inc. v. Neason, 363 Ga. App. 19, 870 S.E.2d 549, 2022 Ga. App. LEXIS 119 (2022).
Notes of Decisions
Efficiency Lodge, Inc. v. Neason, 889 S.E.2d 789 (Ga. 2023).
· cites it 12× “OCGA § 43-21-3.2. Under this lockout remedy, 4 “the guest may be restrained from entering such room and any prop- erty of the guest may be removed by the innkeeper to a secure place where the guest may recover his or her property without liability to the innkeeper.”
JORDAN v. MARRIOTT Int'l, INC. Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Jordan., 816 S.E.2d 822 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 6× “Our Supreme Court has held also that when a departing guest has left baggage with an innkeeper with the innkeeper’s consent, the innkeeper is still liable for it as an innkeeper “for a reasonable time, to 4 OCGA § 43-21-3.2 provides in pertinent part as follows: A written…”
Efficiency Lodge, Inc. v. Amertrius Neason (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “But this Code section only addresses when the guest’s occupancy/tenancy may be terminated – it is actually OCGA § 43-21-3.2 that allows “innkeepers” to “restrai[n guests] from entering such room” and allows “innkeepers” to “remove” “any property of the guest” once the occupancy…”
Wendy Jordan v. Marriott Int'l, Inc a/k/a J.W. Marriott Atlanta Buckhead (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “5 At that time, the innkeeper is authorized to remove a departed guest’s property “to a secure place where the guest may recover his or her property without liability to the innkeeper, except for damages to or loss of 5 OCGA § 43-21-3.2 provides in pertinent part as follows: A…”
Christopher John Couch v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Unlike here, there was evidence in Lindsey that the registered guest had signed a form that stated the checkout time in bold, which gave the hotel the right under OCGA § 43-21-3.2 to remove the guest’s belongings from the room or lock the guest out of the room after the checkout…”
Phillip Ray Lindsey, Jr. v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “706 , 710 (1) (a) ( 816 SE2d 822 ) (2018) (physical precedent only) (Under OCGA § 43-21-3.2, “a person’s status as a guest at the hotel terminates at the expiration of the time period agreed to by the parties and ‘signed or initialed by the guest.”
Darren Jordan v. Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Grp., LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Jordan does not address his claim for promissory estoppel or provide any argument or citation to 1 Kimpton does not argue that this case falls under OCGA § 43-21-3.2, which provides a statutory “lockout” remedy when a “guest [has] signed a written statement prominently setting…”
Betty Denson v. Donald Gerteisen (11th Cir. 2023).
“at 793–95 (citing O.C.G.A. §§ 44-7-49, USCA11 Case: 22-13397 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/08/2023 Page: 9 of 14 22-13397 Opinion of the Court 9 50, 55).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.