O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-4-403 (2019)

Customer’s right to stop payment; burden of proof of loss

✓ 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) A customer or any person authorized to draw on the account if there is more than one person may stop payment of any item drawn on the customer’s account or close the account by an order to the bank describing the item or account with reasonable certainty received at a time and in a manner that affords the bank a reasonable opportunity to act on it before any action by the bank with respect to the item described in Code Section

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1988–1999 · leading case: United Parcel Serv. v. Moore, 519 S.E.2d 15 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United Parcel Serv. v. Moore, 519 S.E.2d 15 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 11-4-403 (a); Ga. R. Bank &c. Co. v.”

First Union Nat'l Bank v. Davies-Elliott, Inc., 452 S.E.2d 132 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Questions of fact remained as to the nature of the Bank’s duty, whether that duty was breached, and as to the Bank’s defense based on constructive fraud.”

First Union Nat'l Bank v. Davies-Elliott, Inc., 429 S.E.2d 161 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “The bank argues that the trial court erred in concluding that its failure to act on appellee’s name deletion request within at least a full weekend and two working days constituted negligence as a matter of law. In reaching its conclusion, the trial court analogized the request…”

Georgetown Vill. Apts. v. Fontana (In Re Fontana), 92 B.R. 559 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1988). · cites it 2× “See O.C.G.A. § 11-4-403 (1982). 4 . O.C.G.A. § 11-3-104 (1982).”

Est. of Holland v. Comm'r, 1997 T.C. Memo. 302 (Tax Ct. 1997). “Under the facts of this case, the checks are not valid inter vivos gifts due to the failure of delivery. Georgia law provides that a customer may stop payment of a check drawn on the customer's account prior to action by the drawee.”

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.