O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 13-11-10 (2019)

Improvements excepted from chapter

✓ 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

The provisions of this chapter do not apply to improvements to real property intended for residential purposes which consist of 12 or fewer residential units.

History

(Code 1981, § 13-11-10, enacted by Ga. L. 1994, p. 1398, § 1.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Contract related to single residence thus no attorney fees. - Trial court properly denied attorney fees to a contractor in a breach of contract suit brought under the Georgia Prompt Pay Act, O.C.G.A. § 13-11-1 et seq., against a homeowner for the failure of the homeowner to pay for the installation of a wrought iron fence as O.C.G.A. § 13-11-10 specifically provided that the Act

did not apply to contracts involving single family residences and no evidence to support a bad faith litigation award was made. Since § 13-11-10 specifically provided that the Act did not apply, there was no other statutory basis under the Act to support the contractor’s claim for attorney fees. Pipe Solutions, Inc. v. Inglis, 291 Ga. App. 328, 661 S.E.2d 683 (2008).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2008–2008 · leading case: Pipe Solutions, Inc. v. Inglis, 661 S.E.2d 683 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pipe Solutions, Inc. v. Inglis, 661 S.E.2d 683 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “answered affirmatively the question posed on the verdict form: “If you have found in favor of the Plaintiff, is the Plaintiff entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees?” Thereafter, the trial court entered a judgment, finding that the property to which improvements were…”

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.