O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-14-9 (2019)

Civil remedies as supplemental and not mutually exclusive

✓ 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 application of one civil remedy under this chapter shall not preclude the application of any other remedy, civil or criminal, under this chapter or any other provision of law. Civil remedies under this chapter are supplemental and not mutually exclusive.

History

Code 1933, § 26-3408, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 405, § 1; Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 2-25/HB 233.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 4-1/HB 233, not codified by the General Assembly,

provides that: “This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2015, and shall apply to seizures of property for forfeiture that occur on or after that date. Any such seizure that occurs before July 1, 2015, shall be governed by the statute in effect at the time of such seizure.”

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Fraud and RICO actions. - Since the requisite predicate acts in the insureds’ Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., claim could stand alone as a separate cause of action for fraud, the jury found the insurer guilty of both fraud and RICO violations, and because the insurer did not challenge the form of the verdict on appeal, its claim that the insureds’ fraud claim was barred by the election of remedies doctrine was rejected. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Clark, 255 Ga. App. 14, 566 S.E.2d 2, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 475 (2002), cert. denied, No. S02C1266, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 779 (Ga. Sept. 6, 2002), cert. denied, No. S02C1180, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 780 (Ga. Sept. 6, 2002).

When each of the victims of a fraudulent scheme sued the perpetrator for fraud and related claims, the victims could have also sued the perpetrator under the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., in the same action, and the victims should have raised such a claim in those actions because, when the victims did not, and lost the victims’ suits against the perpetrator, the victims were barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata from filing RICO claims against the perpetrator at a later time. Austin v. Cohen, 268 Ga. App. 650, 602 S.E.2d 146, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 877 (2004), cert. denied, No. S04C2018, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 981 (Ga. Oct. 25, 2004).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2001–2011 · leading case: Patel v. State, 713 S.E.2d 381 (Ga. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Patel v. State, 713 S.E.2d 381 (Ga. 2011). · cites it 8× “[5] See also OCGA § 16-14-9. [6] *385 In contrast, "[a] RICO forfeiture proceeding is not an available avenue for Georgia's aggrieved citizens but is a proceeding that can only be initiated by the State pursuant to OCGA § 16-14-7.”

Pimper v. State Ex Rel. Simpson, 555 S.E.2d 459 (Ga. 2001). · cites it 4× “[2] In addition to OCGA § 16-14-7(m), the complaint recites that it was brought pursuant to OCGA § 16-14-9, which provides that the "application of one civil remedy under this chapter shall not preclude the application of any other remedy, civil or criminal.”

Austin v. Cohen, 602 S.E.2d 146 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “The trial court also decided that OCGA § 16-14-9 does not create additional litigation rights and does not create an exception to the doctrine of res judicata.”

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Clark, 566 S.E.2d 2 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “7 Because the Clarks were unable to obtain satisfaction on their RICO claim, the fraud claim is still available in the sense that it is not precluded by the doctrine of election of remedies.”

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.