O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-8 (2019)

Limitations on security interest; application of payments to revolving accounts

✓ 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

(a) Any security interest taken pursuant to a retail installment contract or revolving account shall not be taken with respect to clothing, softwares, and other nondurable items. Each payment with respect to a revolving account shall be applied to goods and services as follows: first to unpaid time price differential or finance charge; then, as to goods purchased on different dates, the first purchased shall be deemed first paid for; as to goods purchased on the same date, the lowest priced shall be deemed first paid for. (b) Nothing contained in subsection (a) of this Code section shall prevent the parties from agreeing in writing for the payments to be otherwise applied; provided, however, that this Code section shall be construed consistently with Part 2 of Article 15 of this chapter, the “Fair Business Practices Act of 1975.” Nothing in this Code section shall be deemed to authorize any act or practice which would otherwise be deemed unfair and deceptive under Part 2 of Article 15 of this chapter, the “Fair Business Practices Act of 1975.”

History

Ga. L. 1976, p. 721, § 2; Ga. L. 1994, p. 696, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Section does not apply to duration of security interest. - This section, which provides that payments on revolving accounts are to be applied first to goods which are first purchased has nothing to do with the creation, duration, definition, or enforcement of purchase

money security interests in consumer goods and, specifically, does not purport to terminate a security interest contrary to the clear terms of a security agreement. In re Norrell, 426 F. Supp. 435, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17620 (M.D. Ga. 1977).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 253 et seq., 589. ALR. Validity and construction of revolving

charge account contract or plan, 41 A.L.R.3d 682.

SELLING/OTHER TRADE PRACTICES

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1994–1997 · leading case: Lee v. Davis/McGraw, Inc. (In Re Lee), 169 B.R. 790 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1994).
Lee v. Davis/McGraw, Inc. (In Re Lee), 169 B.R. 790 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1994). · cites it 2× “See O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-8; 10-l-2(a)(9), (12). Moreover, the appellate court in Norrell refused to apply that statute to a determination of purchase money status holding that “[t]he statute has nothing to do with the creation, duration, definition, or enforcement of purchase money…”
In Re Oszajca, 207 B.R. 41 (2d Cir. BAP 1997). “"); Ga.Code Ann. § 10-1-8 (1996) (Providing that "[a] security interest taken pursuant to a retail installment contract or revolving account shall not be taken with respect to clothing, softwares, and other nondurable items.”
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.