Recoupment allowed for overpayment when debtor exercises right to direct payments.

- When debtor exercised right to direct payments under former Code 1882, § 2869 (see O.C.G.A. § 13-4-42), the debtor may recoup any overpayment on a note where it had applied to other notes. Thompson v. Mitchell, 74 Ga. 797 (1885).

Recoupment not authorized for payments made in ignorance of law.

- Company was not entitled to recoup overpayments made under a purchase agreement's tax clause as the payments were made in ignorance of the law; the company pointed to no evidence that the company was mistaken as to what the law required with respect to the payments after the decedent's death, but made the payments until it was informed that payment was not required. Wallis v. B & A Construction Co., 273 Ga. App. 68, 614 S.E.2d 193 (2005).

Although O.C.G.A. § 13-7-12 arguably allows recoupment for any overpayment, O.C.G.A. § 13-1-13 more specifically provides that payments may not be recovered if made in ignorance of the law; O.C.G.A. § 13-1-13 has been applied to overpayments; to the extent a conflict exists, therefore, the appellate court cannot construe O.C.G.A. § 13-7-12 to permit recoupment of an overpayment made in ignorance of the law. Wallis v. B & A Construction Co., 273 Ga. App. 68, 614 S.E.2d 193 (2005).

Trial court was authorized to conclude that the buyers were not entitled to recover on their recoupment claim made in the context of the sellers' suit on three promissory notes; a management agreement was a sham, and the evidence showed that no money was paid thereunder; further, money paid as a downpayment on a business sale contract and additional money paid to one of the sellers in return for services were voluntarily paid, and the evidence did not demand a finding of an overpayment or payment on account of fraud, accident, or mistake. Park v. Fortune Ptnr., Inc., 279 Ga. App. 268, 630 S.E.2d 871 (2006).

Rule for obtaining affirmative relief on tort claim against contract claim is same for setoff and recoupment.

- Rule as to setting off a tort claim against a contractual claim, and obtaining affirmative relief in a court of law, is the same when counterclaim is based on recoupment as it is in cases when counterclaim is based on setoff. Georgia Mach. Co. v. Auburn Mach. Works, Inc., 103 Ga. App. 574, 120 S.E.2d 28 (1961).

Plea of recoupment must allege terms or conditions of overpayments.

- Plea in the nature of a recoupment for alleged overpayments which nowhere alleges upon what terms or conditions, if any, alleged overpayments were made, fails to set out any right in defendant to recover against plaintiff. Risener v. Kidd, 35 Ga. App. 38, 132 S.E. 112 (1926).

Cited in Wiseberg v. Novelty Hat Mfg. Co., 3 Ga. App. 362, 59 S.E. 1112 (1908); Wood & Bro. v. Jones & Son, 10 Ga. App. 735, 73 S.E. 1099 (1912); Middleton v. Pruden, 191 Ga. 893, 14 S.E.2d 82 (1941); MacNeill v. Bazemore, 194 Ga. 406, 21 S.E.2d 414 (1942); Alpharetta Feed & Poultry Co. v. Cocke, 82 Ga. App. 718, 62 S.E.2d 642 (1950); Tempo Mgt., Inc. v. Lewis, 210 Ga. App. 390, 436 S.E.2d 98 (1993).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Counterclaim, Recoupment, and Setoff, §§ 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, 17.

C.J.S.

- 80 C.J.S., Set-Off and Counterclaim, §§ 2, 13, 14.

ALR.

- Character of claims available by way of setoff, counterclaim, or recoupment in action on construction contract, 46 A.L.R. 393.

Payments made under unenforceable contract as applicable in reduction of amount recoverable on quantum meruit, 76 A.L.R. 1412.

Right of counterclaim, setoff, and the like, of defendant against partners individually, in action to enforce partnership claim, 39 A.L.R.2d 295.

Landlord's liability for damage to tenant's property caused by water, 35 A.L.R.3d 143.

Failure of creditor, or creditor's assignee, to secure credit insurance as affecting rights or liabilities of debtor, upon debtor's loss, 88 A.L.R.3d 794.