O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-853 (2019)

Civil action authorized

✓ 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

An elder or disabled person who suffers damage or injury as a result of an offense or violation described in this article has a cause of action to recover actual damages, punitive damages, if appropriate, and reasonable attorney’s fees. Restitution ordered pursuant to this Code section has priority over a civil penalty imposed pursuant to this article.

History

Code 1981, § 10-1-853, enacted by Ga.

L. 1993, p. 1092, § 2; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1088, § 10/SB 148.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Complaint only need allege one elderly victim. - In an action in which the plaintiff consumer filed a complaint under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq., and the Georgia Unfair or Deceptive Practices Toward the Elderly Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-850 et seq., and the lender argued for dismissal because the language of O.C.G.A. § 10-1-851 required conduct directed at more than one elderly

person, the argument was rejected; consistent with O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(6), and the use of plurals or the singular form in O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-850, 10-1-852, and 10-1-853, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-851 required only a showing that FBPA was violated against one elderly person. Kitchen v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., No. 1:04-CV-2750-BBM, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43937 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 29, 2005).

SELLING/OTHER TRADE PRACTICES

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2020–2025 · leading case: Paul A. Schofield, as Chapter 7 Tr. of the Est v. The Brian A. Moore Law Firm LLC (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2025).
Paul A. Schofield, as Chapter 7 Tr. of the Est v. The Brian A. Moore Law Firm LLC (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2025). · cites it 6× “) Plaintiff also seeks an award of punitive damages authorized under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-853 based on Mr. Mai’s status as an elder person.”
Glover v. Ic Sys. Inc (M.D. Ga. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 10-1-399(d), and UDPTEA, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-853. [Doc. 28, p. 5]. While attorneys’ fees are available for prevailing plaintiffs under these acts, the FBPA requires a court to “deny a recovery of attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation which are incurred after the rejection of…”
Lee v. Medicredit, Inc. (S.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 2× “) Concerning the UDPTEA, Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 10-1-853, Defendant’s violation of the GFBPA constitutes a violation of the UDPTEA because Plaintiff is both a “disabled” and “elderly” person, as those terms are defined in O.”
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.