O.C.G.A.
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.
This article may be cited as “Uniform Commercial Code - Secured Transactions.”
History
Code 1981, § 11-9-101, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 1.
Annotations
Law reviews. For comment, “Electronic Self-Help Re-
possession and You: A Computer Software Vendor’s Guide to Staying Out of Jail,” see 48 Emory L.J. 1477 (1999).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 68A Am. Jur. 2d, Secured Transactions, § 123 et seq. Am. Jur. Proof of Facts. Violation of the Truth-In-Lending Act and Regulation Z, 73 POF3d 275. C.J.S. 6A C.J.S., Assignments, §§ 82, 87. 8 C.J.S., Bailments, § 42. 14 C.J.S., Chattel Mortgages, §§ 2, 311 et seq. 35 C.J.S., Factors, § 46 et seq. 53 C.J.S., Liens, § 2 et seq. 72 C.J.S., Pledges, §§ 5, 43 et seq. U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 9-
101. ALR. What constitutes Truth in Lending Act violation which “was not intentional and resulted from bona fide error not withstanding maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error” within meaning of § 130(c) of Act (15 USCA § 1640(c)), 153 A.L.R. Fed. 193. Consignment transactions under Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 on secured transactions, 58 A.L.R.6th 289.
Notes of Decisions
Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Rozier, 597 S.E.2d 367 (Ga. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Revised Article 9 of the Georgia Uniform Commercial Code (OCGA§ 11-9-101 et seq.) governs our analysis.”
Elcan Investments, Inc. v. Kirk, 371 S.E.2d 146 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 8× “Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that the contract between the parties is covered by the Uniform Commercial Code Secured Transactions, OCGA § 11-9-101 et seq., and that defendant converted her washing machine by failing to comply with certain provisions of the Uniform…”
Branan v. Equico Lessors, Inc., 342 S.E.2d 671 (Ga. 1986).
· cites it 2× “This case comes to us upon certified questions submitted by the Court of Appeals in regard to the efficacy of the appellant’s waiver of notice.”
Cotton States Mut. Ins. v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 308 S.E.2d 199 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Whether or not the surety has made a filing pursuant to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (OCGA § 11-9-101 et seq. (Code Ann. § 109A-9 — 101 et seq.”
Tafel v. Lion Antique Cars & Investments, Inc.; & Vice Versa, 773 S.E.2d 743 (Ga. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Tafel next contends that the “Race Car Loan Agreement” is governedbythe Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), see OCGA § 11-9-101 et seq., and that the trial court erred by not ruling that, under the UCC, when Lion Antique retained the race cars instead of immediately selling them,…”
Davis v. Concord Com. Corp., 434 S.E.2d 571 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The Uniform Commercial Code — Secured Transactions, OCGA § 11-9-101 et seq., provides the framework for any recovery of the balance of the purchase price after a secured party has repossessed and disposed of collateral securing the debt.”
State v. Benton, 699 S.E.2d 767 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “5 See OCGA §§ 11-9-101 et seq. (Uniform Commercial Code, Secured Transactions); 44-14-30 et seq.”
Venable v. Suntrust Bank, 780 S.E.2d 793 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “Accordingly, Venable’s contract is controlled by Article 9 (“Uniform Commercial Code - Secured Transactions”; see OCGA § 11-9-101). See OCGA § 11-9-109 (1).”
Griswell v. Columbus Fin. Co., 470 S.E.2d 256 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “We reject Zelinski’s spurious contention that the mobile home at issue was his principal dwelling and therefore not subject to personal property foreclosure.”
Design Spectrum, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank of Atlanta, 355 S.E.2d 733 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Appellant argues that the signature card contract creates a security interest and lien rather than the right of set-off, thereby requiring adherence to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, OCGA § 11-9-101 et seq. Appellant is correct in its assertion that a security…”
Breitzman v. Heritage Bank, 348 S.E.2d 713 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “That statute is a provision of OCGA § 11-9-101 et seq., which comprises the Secured Transactions Article of our Uniform Commercial Code.”
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.