O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A. § 10-1-30 (2019)
Short title
✓ 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
This article shall be known and may be cited as the “Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act.”
History
Ga. L. 1967, p. 674, § 1.
Annotations
Law reviews. For annual survey of commercial law in 1984-1985, see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 139 (1985).
For annual survey of commercial law in 1990-1991, see 43 Mercer L. Rev. 119 (1991). For survey article on insurance law for the period from June 1, 2002 through May 31, 2003, see 55 Mercer L. Rev. 277 (2003).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases, 1984–2017 · leading case: In Re Graupner, 356 B.R. 907 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2006).
In Re Graupner, 356 B.R. 907 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2006). “In its initial brief, Nuvell argues that the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act (the “MVSFA”), found at O.C.G.A. § 10-1-30 et al., particularly O.”
Arthur Quiller, Lillie Mae Quiller, & All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Barclays Am./credit, Inc., 727 F.2d 1067 (11th Cir. 1984). “The Quillers’ agreement obligated them to pay finance charges exceeding a thirteen percent add-on rate, in apparent violation of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-30 to -38 (Miehie 1982), which limits the finance charge on sales of new mobile homes to…”
Sun v. Mercedes Benz Credit Corp., 562 S.E.2d 714 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). “20 OCGA § 10-1-30 et seq.; Carter v. First Fed.”
Printis v. Bankers Life Ins. Co., Inc., 568 S.E.2d 85 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). “5 Specifically, Printis refers to the Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act, OCGA § 10-1-30 et seq., which limits vehicle retailers’ ability to collect unearned interest.”
In Re Pajot, 371 B.R. 139 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2007). “The court looked elsewhere in the Georgia Code to interpret the meaning of the term “price of the collateral” and adopted the definition of “cash sales price” from the Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act (“MVSFA”), Ga.Code Ann. § 10-1-30 et seq., as the clarifying statute.”
Suntrust Bank v. Venable, 791 S.E.2d 5 (Ga. 2016). “3 We specifically reject SunTrust’s invitation to hold that OCGA § 10-1-31 (a) (9)’s definition of a “retail installment contract” as that term is used in the Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act (“MVSFA”), OCGA § 10-1-30 et seq., controls our determination of the Contract’s…”
In Re Spratling, 377 B.R. 941 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2007). “O.C.G.A. § 10-1-30 to -42 (2000). 3 . O.C.”
Arthur Quiller, Lillie Mae Quiller, & All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Barclays Am./credit, Inc., 764 F.2d 1400 (11th Cir. 1985). “, in the Superior Court of Richmond County, Georgia, alleging a violation of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-30 to -38 (Michie 1982).”
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. London, 332 S.E.2d 345 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). “Appellee London filed a complaint against appellant Ford Motor Credit Company alleging that Ford, among other violations of plaintiff’s rights, had violated the Georgia Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act (OCGA § 10-1-30 et seq.) for a number of years by accelerating *34 motor…”
In Re Smith, 42 B.R. 198 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1984). “Georgia Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-30 et seq. (Michie 1984).”
Whipper v. Mclendon Movers, Inc., 372 S.E.2d 820 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). “), the Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act (OCGA § 10-1-30 et seq.), and the Industrial Loan Act (OCGA § 7-3-1 et seq.”
S. Guar. Corp. v. Doyle, 353 S.E.2d 510 (Ga. 1987). “Doyle and Wood (hereinafter the borrowers) subsequently sued Southern Guaranty Corporation and Fort Wayne Mortgage Company (hereinafter the lenders) under the Georgia Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act (hereinafter GMVSFA), OCGA §§ 10-1-30 to 38. It is undisputed that both…”
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.