Georgia Abandoned Property Notice: There Is No Storage Period, and Why That Is Not the Same as No Duty

A Georgia tenant is gone and their belongings are still in the unit. Most state pages answer this with a number of days, a notice form and a sale procedure. Georgia has none of those. The whole of the Georgia rule is one subsection, O.C.G.A. § 44-7-55(c), and rather than imposing a duty it removes one: after a writ of possession has been executed and the goods placed where the statute directs, the landlord “shall not be a bailee” and “shall owe no duty to the tenant,” and the property “shall be regarded as abandoned.” That is a genuinely unusual answer, and the two ways it goes wrong in practice are opposite in direction. Some pages import another state’s notice-and-storage regime and describe a Georgia procedure that does not exist. Others read the immunity as though it applied to every ending of a tenancy, when its own opening words condition it on a writ. This page states the negative, marks its edges, and names every deadline in the surrounding statute that could be mistaken for a storage clock.

Fill in the fields below and the generator produces a dated record of property left behind you can print, sign, serve and keep a copy of. Nothing is stored and there is no charge. Fields you leave blank print as a dash so you can complete them by hand.

Watch: Free Georgia Abandoned Property Notice — Fillable PDF explained

▶ Watch overview

Be clear about what this document is, because Georgia is one of the states where honesty about that matters. No Georgia statute requires a landlord to give notice about a tenant’s left-behind belongings, and this notice does not satisfy any statutory requirement, because there is none to satisfy. What it does is create a dated, specific record: who the parties were, what address the property was left at, what the property was, how possession came back, where the property was placed and when, and where the former tenant may collect it. That record is worth having for two reasons that follow directly from the law above. First, on the writ track, § 44-7-55(c)’s immunity is written into the same sentence as the placement condition, so being able to show what was placed where, and that the executing officer approved the spot, is being able to show the facts the statute names. Second, on the non-writ track there is no statute at all, so a landlord acting there is acting outside any statutory safe harbour and a contemporaneous inventory with photographs is the only record that will exist. The form is a business record and a courtesy to the former tenant. It is not a Georgia legal notice, and this page will not dress it up as one.

• The full names of the landlord and of every tenant named in the tenancy.
• The address of the premises the property was left in, with any unit number.
• How possession came back — a writ of possession executed under § 44-7-55, or a surrender or abandonment with no writ. The two are not governed alike.
• Where a writ was executed: the case number, the date of execution, and the executing officer or agency.
• The place the property was put, and the fact that the executing officer approved it, because § 44-7-55(c) names both.
• A dated inventory of the property, described item by item, with photographs where practical.
• The date and time the property was moved.
• Where the former tenant may collect the property, and how to arrange it.
• A statement that the notice is given as a courtesy and as a record, and that Georgia law prescribes no statutory notice for this purpose.
• The method by which this notice was sent, and the address it was sent to.
• The landlord’s signature and the date.

• Turning “no statute” into “no duty” off the writ track. § 44-7-55(c) negates bailee status only for property placed after a writ. Where there is no writ there is no statute — and therefore no statutory immunity either. Whether general Georgia law imposes an obligation was not researched here and should not be assumed away.
• Copying a ten-day storage rule out of § 44-7-59. That section applies where “the tenant has placed a manufactured home, mobile home, trailer, or other type of transportable housing” on the property. Its ten days, and its ceiling on storage fees, belong to transportable housing. They are not a Georgia rule for furniture.
• Reading the seven days in § 44-7-55(a) as a storage period. It is when the writ becomes effective after judgment, and nothing else.
• Reading the thirty days in § 44-7-55(d) as a storage period. It is the window for applying to have the writ executed, measured from the writ’s issuance.
• Treating any of the three figures in § 44-7-55(e) as a storage period — and treating its thirty days as a deadline at all. That thirty is a disclaimer of a deadline: “Nothing in this Code section shall require a sheriff, constable, or marshal to execute a writ of possession within 30 days…” Quoted as “the sheriff has 30 days” it says the opposite of the statute. The fourteen days is the proviso to that same clause — where the officer “is unable to execute the writ within 14 days from the landlord’s application or request for such execution,” the landlord may use a private officer at the landlord’s sole cost. The five days is the landlord’s advance written notice to the sheriff of such an execution.
• Selling the goods and applying the money to rent. Chapter 44-7 authorises no sale of a tenant’s abandoned belongings by a landlord and prescribes no accounting for proceeds. Georgia’s rent remedy against goods is the Article 4 distress warrant, which is a court proceeding levied and sold by a public officer.
• Relying on § 44-7-12 to keep a sofa. That section is about trade fixtures — a commercial doctrine — and provides that after the term and possession end, trade fixtures remaining “will be regarded as abandoned for the use of the landlord.” It is not authority over household goods.
• Putting the property somewhere the officer never approved. § 44-7-55(c) permits placement on property “designated by the landlord and as may be approved by the executing officer.” The immunity is written into the same sentence as that condition.

Georgia sets no storage period at all. There is no number of days, no number of hours and no “reasonable time” standard anywhere in O.C.G.A. Chapter 44-7 governing a tenant’s left-behind belongings. There is also no standard of care, and the reason is structural rather than accidental: the one provision that addresses the subject expressly negates the bailment that would otherwise supply one.

That provision is O.C.G.A. § 44-7-55(c), and it is short enough to be the whole answer: “Any writ of possession issued pursuant to this article shall authorize the removal of the tenant or his or her personal property or both from the premises and permit the placement of such personal property on some portion of the landlord’s property or on other property as may be designated by the landlord and as may be approved by the executing officer; provided, however, that the landlord shall not be a bailee of such personal property and shall owe no duty to the tenant regarding such personal property. After execution of the writ, such property shall be regarded as abandoned.”

The section carrying it is captioned “Judgment; issuance and execution of possession; landlord’s liability for wrongful conduct; distribution of funds paid into court registry; removal of personal property,” and subsection (c) has stood unamended since 1994, through five later amendments to other parts of the same section.

So the four things a reader normally comes here for do not exist in Georgia:

• No storage period — no days, no hours, no reasonableness test.
• No notice requirement as to the goods — nothing to describe, nowhere to send, no deadline to state.
• No sale procedure — no advertising, no public sale, no accounting.
• No value threshold below which disposal is authorised.

That is a measured finding rather than a failure to look. Every section caption in all six Articles of Chapter 44-7 was read — seventy captions in total — and the terms “storage,” “stored” and “dispose” return zero captions between them. The same census, on the same text, positively locates five neighbouring regimes that genuinely do exist: the trade-fixture rule, the writ removal rule, the transportable-housing rule, the whole of Article 4 on distress warrants, and the whole of Article 6 on abandoned mobile homes. A search that can find the things that are there and reports nothing where nothing is there is evidence.

Yes, and this is the most important paragraph on the page. § 44-7-55(c) opens with the words “Any writ of possession issued pursuant to this article.” Its operation is conditioned on a writ. Where a tenancy ends without one — a voluntary move-out, a surrender, an abandonment — the subsection does not engage, so the sentence saying the landlord “shall owe no duty to the tenant” is not available either.

What replaces it? As a matter of statute, nothing. The census above found no other provision of Chapter 44-7 touching the subject. But “no statute” is not “no duty.” The finding here is about the Georgia statute book and only about the Georgia statute book. Whether general Georgia law — conversion, trespass to chattels, the ordinary law of bailment — imposes an obligation on a landlord holding a departed tenant’s belongings was not researched for this page, and this page does not answer it in either direction.

Two observations are fair to make, and neither of them is a legal conclusion. The first is that the General Assembly thought it necessary to negate bailee status by express words — which suggests bailee status was the thing that needed negating. The second is that it did so only on the writ track. A landlord who has no writ therefore has neither a statutory procedure to follow nor a statutory shield to stand behind, which is a reason to be more careful in that situation and not less. Taking legal advice before disposing of a departed tenant’s property in Georgia is the practical consequence of a statute book that does not speak to the situation.

This deserves its own section because five different day-figures live inside § 44-7-55, and not one of them is a storage clock. Any of them can be lifted onto a page by a writer working from a keyword search rather than from the text. Here is what each one actually governs.

• Seven days — when the writ becomes effective. § 44-7-55(a): 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.”
• Thirty days — the window to apply for execution. § 44-7-55(d): “applications for execution of a writ of possession shall be made within 30 days of issuance of the writ” unless accompanied by an affidavit showing good cause for the delay; and “The failure to execute a writ in conformity with this Code section shall require the applicant to apply for a new writ.”
• Thirty days again — and this one is a disclaimer of a deadline rather than a deadline. § 44-7-55(e) opens: “Nothing in this Code section shall require a sheriff, constable, or marshal to execute a writ of possession within 30 days from the issuance of any order granting a writ of possession, or the issuance, application, or request for the execution of the writ of possession.” It does not give the officer thirty days to act. It says the section imposes no such requirement at all. Lifted out of its sentence, that figure reads as “the sheriff has 30 days,” which is the opposite of what the clause says — and that makes it the most misleadable number in the whole section.
• Fourteen days — the proviso to that same thirty-day clause. The sentence continues without stopping: “provided, however, that, in the event the sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable, or marshal is unable to execute the writ within 14 days from the landlord’s application or request for such execution, the landlord shall be entitled to utilize the services of” a private officer, at the landlord’s sole cost. So the fourteen days runs from the landlord’s application or request, not from the judgment, and what it unlocks is who may carry out the writ.
• Five days — notice to the sheriff, not to the tenant. Same subsection: “The landlord shall provide written notice to the sheriff … of the date and time of the execution of the writ … at least five calendar days in advance of such execution.”

Every one of those figures is about possession of the premises or about who executes the writ, and one of them is about nothing being required at all. None of them tells a landlord how long to keep a tenant’s belongings, because no Georgia provision does.

No — and this is the single easiest way for a Georgia page to go wrong. § 44-7-59 is captioned “Removal of transportable housing from lands subject to writ of possession,” and its scope words confine it: “If the court issues a writ of possession to property upon which the tenant has placed a manufactured home, mobile home, trailer, or other type of transportable housing and the tenant does not move the same within ten days after a final order is entered, the landlord shall be entitled to have such transportable housing moved from the property at the expense of the tenant by a motor common carrier licensed by the Department of Public Safety for the transportation of manufactured housing.”

The section then creates a lien “upon such transportable housing to the extent of moving fees and storage expenses,” foreclosable in the same manner as special liens on personalty by mechanics, with a stated per-day ceiling on storage fees that is recorded in the source material and is not reproduced here.

Three things follow, and all three are commonly missed. The subject is the dwelling itself, not the contents. Its ten days run from a final order, not from a move-out, and they are a deadline for the tenant to move a mobile home rather than a period for a landlord to hold furniture. And the lien runs “in favor of the person performing such services” — the licensed mover — not automatically to the landlord. Carrying any part of § 44-7-59 across to an apartment full of household goods invents a Georgia rule that does not exist.

No statutory notice is required as to the goods. Georgia’s notice machinery in this chapter is about possession of the premises. § 44-7-50 requires a demand for possession; § 44-7-51 governs the issuance of the summons and its service; § 44-7-53 addresses when the writ issues. Not one of them requires a landlord to describe the property, to name a place where it may be reclaimed, to state a deadline, or to send anything to a last known address. The caption census returns zero hits for “storage” and zero for “dispose” across the whole chapter.

The one notice duty that attaches to executing a writ runs to a public officer. Under § 44-7-55(e), a landlord who uses a certified off-duty officer because the sheriff has not executed within the statutory period must give the sheriff written notice of the date and time “at least five calendar days in advance of such execution.” That is a notice to the sheriff about the eviction. It is not a notice to the tenant about the furniture.

None of that makes a written record pointless. It makes it voluntary. A dated inventory, photographs, the case number and the placement location are the facts § 44-7-55(c) itself talks about, and they are the facts a landlord would want to be able to prove. That is what the form on this page produces, and it is offered as exactly that rather than as compliance with a requirement Georgia has not enacted.

There is no statutory sale procedure, and no self-help seizure for rent. § 44-7-55(c) says the property “shall be regarded as abandoned.” It does not authorise a sale, prescribe advertising, or account for money, so there is no statutory answer to who keeps proceeds — because the statute does not contemplate proceeds. And the subsection is an immunity rather than a lien: it says the landlord is not a bailee and owes no duty. It confers no right to retain goods, to sell them, or to apply their value against arrears, and it is not conditioned on rent being owed at all.

Georgia’s rent remedy against a tenant’s goods is the distress warrant in Article 4, and it is a court process from beginning to end. The power itself is narrow on its face — § 44-7-70: “The landlord shall have power to distrain for rent as soon as the same is due if the tenant is seeking to remove his property from the premises.” The lien is not automatic either — § 44-7-80: “The landlord’s lien for his rent shall attach from the time that the affidavit is made pursuant to Code Section 44-7-71; but it shall take precedence over no lien of older date except as to the crop raised on the premises.”

What sits between those two sections is an ordinary judicial proceeding: an affidavit under § 44-7-71, a summons served on the defendant under § 44-7-72, the tenant’s right to defeat it by tender under § 44-7-73, an answer and trial under § 44-7-74, rent paid into the court registry under § 44-7-75, a bond under § 44-7-76, and levy and sale by a public officer under § 44-7-79 — which directs that the warrant “may be levied by the marshal, the sheriff, or the deputy on any property belonging to said tenant whether found on the premises or elsewhere,” and that the officer “shall advertise and sell the property in the same manner as in the case of levy and sale under execution.” Third-party claims are handled under § 44-7-81, and § 44-7-82(b) makes a tenant’s mobile home “property” for the purposes of the article.

No self-help seizure of a tenant’s goods for rent is authorised anywhere in Chapter 44-7. A landlord who wants the goods to answer for arrears has to go to court to get there.

Not for a dwelling. O.C.G.A. § 44-7-2(b) provides that in any contract, lease, license agreement or similar agreement, oral or written, “for the use or rental of real property as a dwelling place, a landlord or a tenant may not waive, assign, transfer, or otherwise avoid any of the rights, duties, or remedies contained in the following provisions of law,” and the list includes “(4) Article 3 of this chapter, relating to proceedings against tenants holding over” and “(5) Article 4 of this chapter, relating to distress warrants,” alongside the repair duties, the security deposit article and ordinances adopted under § 36-61-11.

§ 44-7-55 sits in Article 3. So in a residential lease the writ track cannot be varied or contracted around by either side — including the requirement that the placement spot be approved by the executing officer. The distress-warrant procedure is likewise non-waivable. A Georgia residential lease clause purporting to authorise the landlord to dispose of property after some agreed number of days is contracting about a subject Article 3 already governs on the writ track and about which Georgia has legislated nothing off it, and neither position supports it.

Note the scope of that protection, because it is expressly limited: § 44-7-2(b) applies to property used “as a dwelling place.” It does not reach a commercial tenant, and what a commercial lease may do was not established here. One more provision on the same section is worth knowing when a lease is being drafted — § 44-7-2(c) makes a tenant-pays-fees clause “void unless the provision also provides for the payment by the landlord of the attorney’s fees of the tenant upon the breach of the rental agreement by the landlord.”

Four regimes turn up in searches for this subject, and none of them is the rule for an ordinary tenant’s belongings.

Trade fixtures, § 44-7-12. The section provides that during the tenancy a tenant may remove trade fixtures erected by the tenant, and that “After the term and his possession are ended, any trade fixtures remaining will be regarded as abandoned for the use of the landlord and will become the landlord’s property.” The phrase “regarded as abandoned” looks like the answer and is not: this is a commercial-tenancy doctrine about fixtures, and the editorial annotations record that the courts have confined it to trade fixtures. It is not authority that a residential tenant’s furniture becomes the landlord’s.

Abandoned mobile homes, Article 6. Sections 44-7-110 through 44-7-119 carry captions such as assessment of an abandoned mobile home by a government agent, liens, foreclosure, public sales and the clerk’s role in managing proceeds. It reads like a full disposal regime because it is one — for a local-government agent dealing with a mobile home, not for a landlord dealing with household goods. Its text was not read for this page, and one of its sections carries a future effective date, so it is named here only so that it is not mistaken for the general rule.

The state unclaimed-property act. Title 44, Chapter 12, Article 5 is captioned “Disposition of Unclaimed Property” and is the first thing a slug-shaped search finds. It is not landlord-tenant law. Its central section is captioned in terms of intangible property subject to the custody of the state, and the surrounding sections are traveler’s checks, bank deposits, insurance funds, dividends, gift certificates and unpaid wages. A caption census of the article found one tangible-goods regime in it — safe-deposit box contents — which shows the census could see tangible property where it existed. It is not there for a landlord’s premises.

Any other state’s storage statute. This is the commonest error of all. Georgia’s neighbours and the states most often cited in national guides do set storage periods, notice contents and sale procedures. Georgia does not, and importing one produces a page that is confidently wrong. The cross-state view of the same problem is set out in our guide to how to handle abandoned property, and the wider Georgia framework in our guide to Georgia landlord tenant laws.

This section is secondary, and it is marked as secondary because no Georgia opinion was read for this page. What follows is a summary of editorial digests published alongside the statute, not a statement of holdings, and it should not be relied on as one.

Those digests report that § 44-7-55(c)’s immunity has been treated as contingent rather than free-standing: contingent on the landlord first placing the tenant’s property on a portion of the landlord’s property, or other specific property designated by the landlord and approved by the executing officer. In the leading digested decision, a landlord who instead had a salvage company dispose of the property rather than placing it as the statute directs was held liable for conversion. A later digested decision found compliance where the property was placed on the driveway of the home.

Two cautions, and the second is the important one. Because these are editorial digests rather than opinions, the shape of the point — set the goods out the way the statute says, or the immunity may not be there — is the most that should be taken from them, and a landlord whose position depends on it should have the opinions themselves pulled. And the period of time recited as a fact in one of those cases is not a Georgia storage period. § 44-7-55(c) imposes no period at all, and a fact recited in a single case does not become a statutory rule.

This part is stated plainly rather than papered over, because the provenance here is weaker than on a state whose legislature publishes its own code. Georgia’s official O.C.G.A. is published under contract through LexisNexis, and that host was not reached. No attempt at it is credited.

What was read is Justia’s reproduction of the 2025 Georgia Code, at caption level across all seventy sections of Chapter 44-7 and in full text for every section the census surfaced, plus a caption-level census of Title 44, Chapter 12, Article 5 in order to exclude the state unclaimed-property act. That copy is demonstrably current rather than merely recent: it carries § 44-7-30.1, enacted in 2024, and § 44-7-55’s history runs to a 2025 act. The annotations describe the 2024 and 2025 amendments as confined to subsection (e), and subsection (c) — the rule this page turns on — has stood unamended since 1994.

codes.findlaw.com was read as a second source and corroborates the wording of § 44-7-55 word for word. It is nonetheless stale: its own footer reads “last updated March 28, 2024,” so it lacks both a 2024 rewrite and a 2025 revision of subsection (e). It is used here only to confirm that Justia’s text of the load-bearing subsection is not a transcription error, and no rule on this page is stated on its authority.

One host was tested and rejected outright. A commonly-linked Georgia code mirror returned a real section and a fabricated one four bytes apart, with identical visible text; dumping the bytes showed a pure navigation shell with no statute pane at all, announcing a code last updated in 2013. A real arm and a fabricated arm that cannot be told apart is not a source, and nothing on this page comes from it.

Finally, the limits. No Georgia court opinion was read. Article 6 on abandoned mobile homes was censused at caption level only and its text was not read. The unclaimed-property article was excluded on its captions and the subject matter of its sections, not on a full reading of its definitions. Local ordinances were not surveyed, and Georgia expressly preserves certain local ordinances, so a municipal rule could in principle add an obligation. And, most importantly, what general Georgia law requires of a landlord after a non-writ move-out was not researched. This page reports that no statute governs it. It does not report that nothing does.

Everything above turns on one question — what happens to the things a tenant leaves behind — and the answer is what it is because in Georgia the immunity arrives with the writ and not a day before. The route the tenancy took decides which rule applies, so the notice that ended it and the money still in dispute are governed separately.

Georgia eviction notice laws. Georgia security deposit laws. Georgia landlord tenant laws.

Published by Tenant Screening Background Check

Established 2004 · 20+ Years · All U.S. States & Territories · Statute-Based · Attorney-Reviewed

A Private Eye Reports™ service trusted by landlords, property managers, and attorneys.