Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 44-12-226 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 44-12-226 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 44-12-226

TITLE 44 PROPERTY

Section 12. Rights in Personalty, 44-12-1 through 44-12-322.

ARTICLE 5 DISPOSITION OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY

44-12-226. Expiration of limitation specified by contract, statute, or court order not to affect duties required by this article.

The expiration, before or after July 1, 1990, of any period of time specified by contract, statute, or court order during which a claim for money or property can be made or during which an action or proceeding may be commenced or enforced to obtain payment of a claim for money or to recover property, does not prevent the money or property from being presumed abandoned nor affect any duty to file a report or to pay or deliver abandoned property to the commissioner as required by this article.

(Code 1981, §44-12-226, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 1506, § 1.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

No presumption of abandonment.

- Assessment of dormancy fees on gift cards and certificates and refusal to honor them after one year did not violate O.C.G.A. § 44-12-205 of the Georgia Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act (DUPA), O.C.G.A. § 44-12-190 et seq; as the cards and certificates had not been unclaimed by the plaintiffs for more than five years when the complaint was filed, they were not presumed abandoned, and DUPA did not apply. Simon Prop. Group, Inc. v. Benson, 278 Ga. App. 277, 628 S.E.2d 697 (2006), aff'd, remanded, 281 Ga. 744, 642 S.E.2d 687 (2007).

Law governing claims by owners against property holders.

- O.C.G.A. § 44-12-226, which simply ensured that a holder was not relieved of its obligation to deliver abandoned property to the state revenue commissioner, even though an owner's claim for possession against a holder was barred by the statute of limitations, did not provide a basis for the owners of certain gift cards and certificates to bring an action against the holder of the cards and certificates that claimed that the dormancy fees and expiration dates on the cards and certificates violated the Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, O.C.G.A. Art. 5, Ch. 12, T. 44; the relationship between the owners and the holder was governed by Georgia contract law. Benson v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 281 Ga. 744, 642 S.E.2d 687 (2007).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Regulation of pre-paid stored-value "gift cards", 46 A.L.R.6th 437.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 44-12-226

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Benson v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., 281 Ga. 744 (Ga. 2007).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 19, 2007 | 642 S.E.2d 687, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 798, 29 A.L.R. 6th 827

...1979); Mayo, Virginia’s Acquisition of Unclaimed and Abandoned Personal Property, 27 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 409, 419 (1986). Furthermore, the act prevents any statutory or contractual period of limitations from running on the State’s claim against a holder. OCGA § 44-12-226; Mayo, supra....
...a windfall to the holders thereof.’ [Cit.]” Simon Property Group v. Benson, supra. See also Screen Actors Guild v. Cory, supra; Mayo, supra. Owners’ complaint alleges that the expiration dates and dormancy fees violate OCGA §§ 44-12-205 and 44-12-226....
...ment of a claim for money or to recover property, does not prevent the money or property from being presumed abandoned nor affect any duty to file a report or to pay or deliver abandoned property to the commissioner as required by this article. OCGA § 44-12-226....
...property is generally derivative, is likewise barred from recovery. State v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 694 P2d 7, 10 (II) (Wash. 1985); 1 Epstein, Unclaimed Property Law and Reporting Forms § 3.02 (2002). However, the uniform provision in OCGA § 44-12-226 was enacted to ensure that the holder is not relieved of his obligation to deliver abandoned property to the Commissioner, even though the owner’s claim for possession against the *747holder may be barred by the statute of limitations....
.... [T]he owner’s claim may be directly extinguished by the statute of limitations but “because of the suspensions provision [ ] of the [uniform act], it does not extinguish the state’s rights.” [Cit.] 1 Epstein, supra at § 3.02. Thus, OCGA § 44-12-226 is not activated until it is time for the state to take custody of the property and, until the holder turns over the funds to the state, the relationship between the owner and the holder, respectively, “remains that of creditor and debtor and the ordinary statute of limitations applies....
...nditions that may be quite proper as between the contracting parties.” People v. Marshall Field & Co., 404 NE2d 368, 373 (II) (Ill. App. 1980). Accordingly, we conclude that it is inconsistent with both the purpose and the express language of OCGA § 44-12-226 to construe it either as repealing statutes of limitations or as invalidating contractual expiration dates which are applicable as between the owner and the holder....
...Toman, for appellants. Alston & Bird, Rebecca M. Lamberth, JohnL. Coalson, Jr., Collin K. Kelly, Jay D. Bennett, Ethan D. Miller, Brock & Clay, Charles C. Clay, for appellees. The very subsections of the DUPA on which Owners rely, OCGA §§ 44-12-205 and 44-12-226, illustrate that the act does not affect the substantive rights of any party until the conditions leading to a presumption of abandonment are satisfied....