O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-10 (2019)

Disposition of goods repossessed after default; right to recover deficiency

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When any goods have been repossessed after default in accordance with Part 6 of Article 9 of Title 11, the seller or holder shall not be entitled to recover a deficiency against the buyer unless within ten days after said repossession he forwards by registered or certified mail or statutory overnight delivery to the address of the buyer shown on the contract or later designated by the buyer a notice of the seller’s or holder’s intention to pursue a deficiency claim against the buyer. The notice shall also advise the buyer of his rights of redemption, as well as

his right to demand a public sale of the repossessed goods. In the event the buyer exercises his right to demand a public sale of the goods, he shall in writing so advise the seller or holder of his election by registered or certified mail or statutory overnight delivery addressed to the seller or holder at the address from which the seller’s or holder’s notice emanated, within ten days after the posting of the original seller’s or holder’s notice. In the event of election of such public sale by the buyer, the seller or holder shall dispose of the repossessed goods at a public sale as provided by law, to be held in the state and county where the original sale took place or the state and county of the buyer’s residence, at the seller’s election. This Code section is cumulative of Part 6 of Article 9 of Title 11 and provides cumulative additional rights and remedies which must be fulfilled before any deficiency claim will lie against a buyer, and nothing in this Code section shall be deemed to repeal said part.

History

Ga. L. 1967, p. 659, § 9; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 3.

Annotations

Cross references. Uniform Commercial Code provisions regarding secured party’s right to dispose of collateral after default, § 11-9-402. Code Commission notes. Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in

2009, “Part 6” was substituted for “Part 5” twice in this Code section. Law reviews. For annual survey on commercial law, see 36 Mercer L. Rev. 115 (1984). For article, “Nonjudicial Foreclosures in Georgia Revisited,” see 24 Ga. St. B. J. 43 (1987).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Debtor to be notified debtor can redeem collateral at any time before sale. - When the debtor is told by notification letter that the debtor has ten days to redeem the debtor’s repossessed collateral, but the collateral is sold after the tenth day, the debtor has not, as a matter of law, been notified that the debtor can redeem the debtor’s collateral at any time before the sale, as required by O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-10 and 11-9-506, and a verdict should be directed for the debtor when the creditor sues for a deficiency judgment. Credithrift of Am., Inc. v. Smith, 168 Ga. App. 45, 308 S.E.2d 53, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2670 (1983). Summary judgment to debtors when creditor did not dispute lack of notice. - Because a credit company did not dispute the factual accuracy of the debtors’ assertion that the company’s deficiency claim was barred by the

company’s failure to send the debtors notice, after repossession, of the company’s intention to pursue a deficiency claim, as required by O.C.G.A. § 10-1-10, the debtors were entitled to summary judgment. Fin. Fed. Credit Inc. v. Smith, No. CV204-209, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17603 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 16, 2005). Notice insufficient. - Notice, within ten days of the repossession of a debtor’s equipment, was not provided of an intent to pursue a deficiency claim as required under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-10 as the notices on August 27 and 28 were more than ten days after the July 30 repossession and more than 60 days after the debtor signed the release on June 11; no indication was given that the notices were sent by registered or certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, and the notices also did not inform the debtor of the debtor’s rights of redemption as well as the

SELLING/OTHER TRADE PRACTICES

debtor’s right to demand a public sale of the repossessed goods. Parham v. Peterson, Goldman & Villani, 296 Ga.

App. 527, 675 S.E.2d 275, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 247 (2009).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 67A Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, § 370 et seq.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1983–2014 · leading case: Parham v. Peterson, Goldman & Villani, 675 S.E.2d 275 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Parham v. Peterson, Goldman & Villani, 675 S.E.2d 275 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 24× “The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court granted summary judgment to PGV 1 Parham asserts that the trial court erred in granting PGV’s motion because CIT failed to provide notice, within ten days of the equipment’s repossession, that CIT intended…”
Grier v. Skinner's Furniture Store of Newnan, Inc., 349 S.E.2d 826 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “She asserted that appellee’s failure to provide the notice required by OCGA §§ 10-1-10 and 11-9-504 (3) served both to bar the instant action as one seeking a deficiency, as well as to authorize a recovery by her of monetary damages pursuant to OCGA § 11-9-507 (1).”
Credithrift of Am., Inc., No. 2 v. Smith, 308 S.E.2d 53 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “The trial court directed a verdict for Smith on grounds that Credithrift insufficiently notified Smith of his right to redeem the collateral at any time prior to the time the collateral would be sold, pursuant to OCGA §§ 10-1-10 (Code Ann. § 96-909) and 11-9-506 (Code Ann.”
John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co. v. Parham, 755 S.E.2d 825 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 28× “Following a hearing, the trial court denied Deere’s motion for summary judgment and granted Parham’s cross-motion for summary judgment, noting that although it did not agree that the notice provisions of OCGA § 10-1-10 applied, it was nonetheless bound by Parham v.”
John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co. v. Carl S. Parham (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 27× “Following a hearing, the trial court denied Deere’s motion for summary judgment and granted Parham’s cross- motion for summary judgment, noting that although it did not agree that the notice provisions of OCGA § 10-1-10 applied, it was nonetheless bound by Parham v.”
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.