Georgia Repair and Deduct: There Is No Statute, and Why That Changes What You Do

Search for Georgia repair and deduct and you will be told, confidently and repeatedly, that Georgia tenants may fix a problem and take it off the rent. Georgia has no statute that says so. What Georgia has is a line of judicial decisions, the newest of them from 1981 and the leading statement of the tenant’s three options from 1909, describing a tenant’s right to make repairs and set the expense off against the rent — and a set-off is something you assert when somebody sues you, not something you do to your own rent cheque. Getting that distinction wrong is how a tenant with a genuine grievance ends up defending a dispossessory as a defaulting tenant instead of as a complaining one. This page states the negative, then sets out the route that does exist.

Fill in the fields below and the generator produces a dated repair demand letter 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 Repair and Deduct Letter — Fillable PDF explained

▶ Watch overview

The document this page builds is a repair demand letter, not a repair-and-deduct notice. That is a deliberate choice: a letter announcing that a Georgia tenant intends to deduct a repair from the rent would be an instrument for doing something no Georgia statute permits, and it would be handed to the landlord’s lawyer as an admission of intent to short-pay. What the generator produces instead is the letter that does the work the case law actually asks for — it identifies the parties and the premises, describes the defect specifically, records the date, states that the landlord’s duty under O.C.G.A. § 44-7-13(a) is engaged, asks for repair within a stated reasonable time, and reserves the tenant’s right to recover or recoup the reasonable expense if the landlord does not act. It gives you the dated, provable notice that the set-off depends on, without asserting a right Georgia has never enacted.

• The full names of the landlord and of every tenant on the lease.
• The address of the premises with any unit number.
• The date of the letter and the date the defect was first noticed.
• A specific description of the defect — the room, the fixture, the failure — rather than a general complaint.
• A reference to the landlord’s duty under O.C.G.A. § 44-7-13(a) to keep the premises in repair.
• Where the lease was entered into or renewed on or after July 1, 2024, the implied habitability provision § 44-7-13(b) reads into it.
• A reasonable time to repair, stated as your own request and not as a statutory deadline, because Georgia has none.
• A reservation of the tenant’s right to recover or to recoup the reasonable expense if the repair is not made.
• How the letter was delivered, and what proof you kept.
• A note of the supporting evidence held: dated photographs, prior messages, any inspection.
• The tenant’s signature and the date.

• Treating the case-law set-off as a statute. There is no O.C.G.A. section authorising repair and deduct. Citing one in a letter tells the other side you have not read the chapter.
• Deducting first and explaining later. The set-off is recoupment in a proceeding. Deduct unilaterally and the immediate legal fact is that the rent is short.
• Stopping rent altogether. § 44-7-15 says the rent does not abate even for casualty, and Swim Dixie‘s digest says failure to repair “will not work a forfeiture of the rent” short of untenantability and constructive eviction.
• Assuming repair receipts count as rent in a dispossessory. Lipshutz v. Shantha, 144 Ga. App. 196 (1977), is digested as holding that while “valid receipts for repairs are a defense to the merits of a dispossessory action, repair receipts do not constitute payment of rent” — and that the General Assembly intended “rent” to mean “money.”
• Relying on a fixed number of days. Neither the statute nor any located annotation supplies one. A letter that announces a statutory deadline Georgia does not have invites the argument that the notice itself was wrong.
• Giving notice only by phone. Nothing requires writing, which is exactly why writing matters: the tenant has to prove the notice, and a call leaves nothing to prove it with.
• Assuming a lease clause can move the landlord’s duty in a home. For property rented “as a dwelling place,” § 44-7-2(b) says a landlord or tenant “may not waive, assign, transfer, or otherwise avoid” the rights and duties in § 44-7-13 and § 44-7-14, among others. That protection is for dwellings; a commercial lease can shift the duty.
• Quoting a pre-2024 version of § 44-7-13. Some published copies still carry the old single sentence with no subsection (b). If the copy you are reading has no habitability provision, it predates HB 404.

No. Georgia has no repair-and-deduct statute. O.C.G.A. tit. 44 ch. 7 is where a residential repair remedy would live, and it does not contain one. Articles 1, 2 and 3 — 46 sections across Article 1 (§§ 44-7-1 to 44-7-25), Article 2 (§§ 44-7-30 to 44-7-37) and Article 3 (§§ 44-7-49 to 44-7-59) — were read in full. None of them supplies any of the machinery a repair remedy needs:

• No rent-withholding right. Nothing in the chapter lets a tenant stop or reduce rent because a defect has gone unrepaired. The chapter’s withholding language is about the landlord’s security deposit, and it is pointed the other way: § 44-7-35(b) works a forfeiture of a landlord’s “rights to withhold any portion of the security deposit.”
• No repair escrow. There is no scheme for paying rent to a court or an agency pending repairs. The chapter’s escrow account is the landlord’s: § 44-7-31 requires a security deposit to be “deposited in an escrow account” and the tenant to be “informed in writing of the location of the escrow account.” That is a deposit rule, not a repair remedy.
• No tenant deduction. No section authorises a tenant to take the cost of a repair off the rent.
• No abatement. § 44-7-15 says the opposite in terms — the rent “shall not abate.”

So the honest answer to the question this page is named for is a negative — and, unusually, a negative that leaves you better off than the confident yes you will find elsewhere, because it tells you where the real risk is.

It says the landlord must keep the premises in repair, and it stops. The section is quoted in full in the panel above; the important structural fact is its shape. Subsection (a) creates a duty on the landlord. Subsection (b), added by the Safe at Home Act in 2024, reads an implied warranty of habitability into residential agreements. Neither confers anything on the tenant that looks like a remedy: no notice, no waiting period, no cap, no self-help, no procedure.

§ 44-7-14 sits next to it and is about the landlord’s liability rather than the tenant’s options: “Having fully parted with possession and the right of possession, the landlord is not responsible to third persons for damages resulting from the negligence or illegal use of the premises by the tenant; provided, however, the landlord is responsible for damages arising from defective construction or for damages arising from the failure to keep the premises in repair.” That is a liability rule, and the way it is enforced is by suing.

And § 44-7-15 forecloses the intuitive shortcut in terms: “The destruction of a tenement by fire or the loss of possession by any casualty not caused by the landlord or from a defect of his title shall not abate the rent contracted to be paid.” If rent does not abate when the building burns, it is not going to abate because a water heater has failed.

From case law, and only from case law. Under § 44-7-13 the publisher prints a series of judicial decisions summarised in a sentence each, under the heading “Rights and Duties of Tenant.” Those summaries are the source of every Georgia repair-and-deduct claim you will read online. They are worth taking seriously and they are worth labelling accurately, so here is the labelling: these are a publisher’s editorial digests of decisions. They are not statutory text, and no opinion behind them was read for this page. They were also not checked for later history, so nothing here should be treated as the last word on any of them.

The line runs a long way back. Lewis & Co. v. Chisolm, 68 Ga. 40 (1881), is digested as holding that where a landlord on notice fails to keep the premises in repair, “the tenant has a right of action, or the tenant may recoup against the rent.” Dougherty v. Taylor & Norton Co. (1909) sets out the tenant’s three options, quoted in the panel above. Williamson v. May, 44 Ga. App. 532 (1932), is digested as allowing a tenant whose goods were damaged by an unrepaired leaking roof to “recoup the amount of such damages as against a distress warrant for the rent.” And Swim Dixie Pool Corp. v. Kraemer (1981) is the most recent statement located.

The oldest digest this page relies on is older still — J.B. White & Co. v. Montgomery, 58 Ga. 204 (1877), quoted below on the tenant’s duty to notify — and the newest is from 1981. The Swim Dixie digest describes a landlord who covenanted to keep the premises in repair rather than one under the statutory duty. Whether a modern Georgia residential case would state the remedy in identical terms was not established here. That uncertainty is itself a reason not to run the strategy on your own rent.

Because a set-off is something you plead, and a deduction is something you do. The distinction sounds academic until you notice who is in court and in what posture. Recoupment is a defensive claim raised inside somebody else’s action — Swim Dixie‘s “recoupment to an action for the rent,” Williamson‘s recoupment “as against a distress warrant.” The landlord sues; the tenant answers that the landlord’s own breach reduces or extinguishes what is owed; a judge decides whether the expense was reasonable and whether the notice and the reasonable opportunity were made out.

A unilateral deduction skips every one of those steps and produces a different legal fact entirely. The rent due under the lease has not been paid in full. Nothing in the chapter authorises paying less; § 44-7-15 says the rent does not abate; and the Swim Dixie digest says failure to repair “will not work a forfeiture of the rent, unless the premises become untenantable and a constructive eviction results.” So the tenant who deducts is not standing on a Georgia remedy. The tenant who deducts is in default and hoping to win the argument afterwards.

You may well win it. The set-off is a real defence and the expense may be entirely reasonable. But you will be defending your possession of the home at the same time, which is the part the confident guides leave out — and the next section is the reason that matters more in Georgia than almost anywhere.

Rent has to go into the registry of the court, and repair receipts do not count as rent. This is the sentence that decides Georgia repair disputes, and it is the one most often missing from pages about them.

§ 44-7-53(b) provides that the defendant “shall be allowed to remain in possession of the premises pending the final outcome of the litigation; provided, however, that, at the time of his answer, the tenant must pay rent into the registry of the court pursuant to Code Section 44-7-54.” § 44-7-54(a) then sets out what has to be paid: where possession cannot be finally determined within two weeks of service, the tenant “shall be required to pay into the registry of the trial court” all rent and tenant-responsible utility payments falling due after the dispossessory warrant issues, as they become due, and those allegedly owed beforehand — “provided, however, that, in lieu of such payment, the tenant shall be allowed to submit to the court a receipt indicating that payment has been made to the landlord.”

Note what that proviso is: a receipt showing rent was paid to the landlord. It is not a receipt showing money was spent on a plumber. The publisher’s digest of Lipshutz v. Shantha (1977) makes the point directly: “While valid receipts for repairs are a defense to the merits of a dispossessory action, repair receipts do not constitute payment of rent within the contemplation of this statute,” and the General Assembly, in letting tenants stay in possession by tendering rent into court, “intended rent to mean money.”

So the set-off and the deposit are two separate obligations, and they can pull in opposite directions. A tenant can be right on the merits and still lose possession by failing to deposit. Money that has already gone to a contractor is not available to the clerk. That, mechanically, is how a Georgia repair-and-deduct becomes an eviction. Termination and possession in the round are covered in our guide to Georgia landlord tenant laws.

No statutory notice is required, and no waiting period exists. No section of tit. 44 ch. 7 prescribes a repair notice, its contents, its delivery method or a number of days. That is an absence, not a gap in the research: the sections were enumerated and read.

The case law supplies two soft requirements instead. Notice to the landlord — the digest of J.B. White & Co. v. Montgomery (1877) states that when rented premises become out of repair “it is the duty of the tenant to notify the landlord of this fact, and also to abstain from using any part of the premises, the use of which would be attended with danger.” And a reasonable opportunity to make the repair, from Swim Dixie. Neither attaches a number.

Because nothing requires writing, writing is the tenant’s own protection rather than a formality: notice is an element the tenant has to prove, and only a written, dated, delivered demand proves it. That is exactly what the letter this page builds is for.

For a home, the core duties cannot be signed away. § 44-7-2(b) provides that in any 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” the rights, duties or remedies in a listed set of provisions — which includes § 44-7-13, relating to the landlord’s duties as to repairs and improvements, and § 44-7-14, relating to the landlord’s liability for failure to repair, along with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the chapter. That section is corroborated word for word across both of the publishers consulted.

Two consequences. First, a residential lease clause purporting to make the tenant responsible for the landlord’s § 44-7-13 duty is running against § 44-7-2(b). Second, the protection is tied to the words “as a dwelling place”, so a commercial tenant is in a different position and the lease can allocate the repair duty.

§ 44-7-2(c) adds a fee rule worth knowing before anyone litigates: a provision in a dwelling lease requiring the tenant to pay the landlord’s attorney’s fees “shall be 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.” One-way fee clauses in residential leases do not stand.

Georgia is the hardest state in this family to verify, and the page should say why. Georgia’s General Assembly does not publish the Code itself — it is published under contract by a private publisher, and the legislature’s own legislation interface returned an authentication error to an unauthenticated request. Every source used here is therefore a private publisher rather than the state.

The primary source read was Justia’s 2025 Code of Georgia, whose breadcrumbs confirm the sections are on the books and unrepealed as of that edition. FindLaw’s Georgia Code was read as a second source and corroborates § 44-7-2 word for word. But FindLaw is stale on the section that matters most: its § 44-7-13 page is stamped current as of March 28, 2024, and serves the pre-amendment single sentence with no subsection (b) — because HB 404 took effect on July 1, 2024, after that cut-off. The current text of § 44-7-13 therefore rests on one host, and this page says so rather than claiming a corroboration it does not have. A third publisher was tested and rejected outright: it returned the same page, byte for byte, for two real sections and for a section number that does not exist, all at a success status. Nothing from it was used.

Finally, the scope of the negative. It is a statutory negative over O.C.G.A. tit. 44 ch. 7, Articles 1 to 3. It does not claim Georgia has no tenant repair remedy anywhere in law — the case-law set-off is precisely such a remedy, and this page describes it. Local ordinances were not surveyed, and § 44-7-2(b) itself preserves rights under certain local ordinances, so a Georgia city may add enforcement this page does not cover. Where possession or a substantial sum is at stake, take the letter and the evidence to a Georgia attorney rather than to a national summary that has told you there is a statute.

Everything above turns on one question — what has to happen before a Georgia tenant may spend money on a repair — and the answer is what it is because in Georgia this is a defence you raise, not a step you take. If the tenancy itself is ending rather than the fixture, the notice that ends it follows separate rules entirely: Georgia eviction notice laws.

Money withheld over a repair and money withheld from a deposit are decided under different rules, and treating them as one question is expensive — what a landlord may keep and by when it must come back is Georgia security deposit laws. And if the condition makes staying unrealistic, leaving early carries its own exposure: breaking a lease in Georgia.

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.