O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-3-418 (2019)

Payment or acceptance by mistake

✓ 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) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, if the drawee of a draft pays or accepts the draft and the drawee acted on the mistaken belief that (i) payment of the draft had not been stopped pursuant to Code Section 11-4-403; or (ii) the signature of the drawer of the draft was authorized, the drawee may recover the amount of the draft from the person to whom or for whose benefit payment was made or, in the case of acceptance, may revoke the acceptance. Rights of the drawee under this subsection are not affected by failure of the drawee to exercise ordinary care in paying or accepting the draft.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, if an instrument has been paid or accepted by mistake and the case is not covered by subsection (a) of this Code section, the person paying or accepting may, to the extent permitted by the law governing mistake and restitution, (i) recover the payment from the person to whom or for whose benefit payment was made; or (ii) in the case of acceptance, may revoke the acceptance.

(c) The remedies provided by subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section may not be asserted against a person who took the instrument in good faith and for value or who in good faith changed position in reliance on the payment or acceptance. This subsection does not limit remedies provided by Code Section 11-3-417 or 11-4-407.

(d) Notwithstanding Code Section 11-4-215, if an instrument is paid or accepted by mistake and the payor or acceptor recovers payment or revokes acceptance under subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section, the instrument is deemed not to have been paid or accepted and is treated as dishonored, and the person from whom payment is recovered has rights as a person entitled to enforce the dishonored instrument.

History

Code 1981, § 11-3-418, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 1306, § 3.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Money order issued in wrong amount. - When a company received and negotiated in good faith a money order that was issued by a postal clerk in the wrong amount, but that was regular on its face, by accepting the instrument as payment for a customer’s outstanding debt, the company took the instrument for

value. Thus, O.C.G.A. § 11-3-418(c) governs the situation, and neither the postal service nor the clerk has a remedy against the company for having negotiated the instrument. Kline v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 246 Ga. App. 172, 538 S.E.2d 93, 2000 Ga. App. LEXIS 968 (2000).

RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 3418.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2000–2015 · leading case: Jenkins v. Wachovia Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 711 S.E.2d 80 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jenkins v. Wachovia Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 711 S.E.2d 80 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “A § 11-3-301, a “[p]erson entitled to enforce” an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument; (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder; or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument…”

Kline v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 538 S.E.2d 93 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “OCGA § 11-3-418 provides limited *174 remedies for payment made by mistake, which is the situation here as Kline “mistakenly” issued the money order for the wrong amount, and Williams then gave the instrument to Atlanta Gas Light, allegedly without noticing the error.”

River Forest, Inc. v. Multibank 2009-1 RES-ADC Venture, LLC, 771 S.E.2d 126 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 11-3-301 provides: “Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument; (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder; or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the…”

River Forest, Inc. v. Multibank 2009-1 Res-Adc Venture, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “The person is 1 OCGA § 11-3-301 provides: “Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument; (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder; or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to…”

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.