O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A. § 13-11-1 (2019)
Short title
✓ 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
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the ‘‘Georgia Prompt Pay Act.’’
History
(Code 1981, § 13-11-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1994, p. 1398, § 1.)
Annotations
Law reviews. - For annual survey of construction law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 109 (2004). JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Pipe Solutions, Inc. v. Inglis, 291 Ga. App. 328, 661 S.E.2d 683 (2008);
Christie v. Rainmaster Irrigation, Inc., 299 Ga. App. 383, 682 S.E.2d 687 (2009).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1985–2019 · leading case: Homestead Partners, Ltd. v. Condor One, Inc. (In Re Homestead Partners, Ltd.), 200 B.R. 274 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1996).
Homestead Partners, Ltd. v. Condor One, Inc. (In Re Homestead Partners, Ltd.), 200 B.R. 274 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1996). “2 One, therefore, reasonably could conclude that statutory percentage-based claims for post-petition fees, such as those arising under O.C.G.A. § 13-11-1, may be presented via an unsecured claim, notwithstanding section 506(b).”
Yates Paving & Grading Co. v. Bryan Cnty., 594 S.E.2d 756 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). “By letter, Yates also put the County on notice of its intent to seek enforcement of its claims under the Georgia Prompt Pay Act, OCGA § 13-11-1 et seq., including its intent to seek attorney fees allowable under the Act, which states, In any action to enforce a claim under this…”
Eagle Jets, LLC. v. Atlanta Jet, Inc., 820 S.E.2d 197 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). “OCGA § 13-11-1 provides that "[o]bligations to pay attorney's fees upon any note or other evidence of indebtedness .”
In Re New Power Co., 313 B.R. 496 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2004). “However, the Court found none of the § 502(b) exceptions to be applicable to attorneys’ fees and stated that “[o]ne, therefore, reasonably could conclude that statutory percentage-based claims for post-petition fees, such as those arising under O.C.G.A. § 13-11-1, may be…”
Stone & Webster, Inc. v. Georgia Power Co., 965 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D.D.C. 2013). “The instant Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and violation of the Georgia Prompt Payment Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 13-11-1 et seq, arising from Defendants’ alleged failure to agree to adjustments to the contract price and project schedule to which Plaintiffs claim they are…”
Misener Marine Constr., Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 594 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 2010). “§ 13-11-8 ("In any action to enforce a claim under this chapter, the prevailing party is entitled to recover a reasonable fee for the services of its attorney including but not limited to trial and appeal and arbitration, in an amount to be determined by the court or the…”
Christie v. Rainmaster Irrigation, Inc., 682 S.E.2d 687 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). “1 In addition, Rainmaster added a claim for promissory estoppel and a claim under the Georgia Prompt Pay Act, OCGA § 13-11-1 et seq. 2 In any event, the trial conference was not transcribed.”
Albany Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Sizemore, 334 S.E.2d 872 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). “" This second portion of the phrase obviously refers to attorney fees, as the reference to OCGA § 13-11-1 immediately follows. It is only the erroneous insertion of a comma which might cause one to believe that the cited code section might refer to the foreclosure provisions of…”
Pipe Solutions, Inc. v. Inglis, 661 S.E.2d 683 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). “28, plus interest thereon and attorney fees, pursuant to the Georgia Prompt Pay Act, OCGA § 13-11-1 et seq. (the “Act”) and that Inglis refused to pay her debt.”
Condor One, Inc. v. Homestead Partners, Ltd. (In Re Homestead Partners, Ltd.), 201 B.R. 1014 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1996). “section 13-11-1 should not be read to provide an unqualified right to a percentage payment with no regard for the actual nature of such expenses or their corresponding reasonableness.”
W. Sur. Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 757 S.E.2d 272 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). “” As the record is inconsistent with the Sureties’ theory of recovery as to attorney fees, and the PPA contemplates attorney fees in actions to “enforce” a claim, 36 we find no error in the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on this count.”
Elec. Works CMA, Inc. v. Baldwin Technical Fabrics, LLC, 703 S.E.2d 124 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). “3 OCGA § 13-11-1 et seq. 4 Kroger, supra at 531-532 (4).”
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.