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.
Any person who violates subsection (a) or (b) of Code Section 16-17-2 shall be barred from the collection of any indebtedness created by said loan transaction and said transaction shall be void ab initio, and any person violating the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of Code Section 16-17-2 shall in addition be liable to the borrower in each unlawful transaction for three times the amount of any interest or other charges to the borrower. A civil action under Code Section 16-17-2 may be brought on behalf of an individual borrower or on behalf of an ascertainable class of borrowers. In a successful action to enforce the provisions of this chapter, a court shall award a borrower, or class of borrowers, costs including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
History
Code 1981, § 16-17-3, enacted by Ga. L. 2004, p. 60, § 3.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Interstate commerce. - Georgia Supreme Court concludes that the Payday Lending Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-17-1(d), including the statement that payday lending does not encompass loans that involve interstate commerce, is merely a legislative finding of fact to which the Court is not bound; to exempt loans that involve interstate commerce from the prohibitions of the Act would create such a contradiction and absurdity as to demonstrate that the Georgia legislature did not mean it to create such a limitation. W. Sky Fin., LLC v. State of Ga. ex rel. Olens, 300 Ga. 340, 793 S.E.2d 357, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 783 (2016).
Limitations period. - Supreme Court of Georgia is not persuaded that the Georgia legislature intended the period of limitation for bringing an enforcement action pursuant to the Payday Lending Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-17-1, et seq., to be governed by the one-year limitation period for forfeiture actions pursuant to the usury laws; instead, the Court concludes the remedies set forth in the Payday Lending Act are governed by the 20-year statute of limitation set forth in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-1. W. Sky Fin., LLC v. State of Ga. ex rel. Olens, 300 Ga. 340, 793 S.E.2d 357, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 783 (2016).
Notes of Decisions
W. Sky Fin., LLC v. State, 793 S.E.2d 357 (Ga. 2016).
· cites it 14× “Pursuant to OCGA§ 16-17-3, any person who violates OCGA § 16-17-2 (a) or (b) is “barred from the collection of any in debtedn ess created by [an illegal] loan transaction” and any such illegal loan shall be deemed void ab initio.”
Parm v. Nat'l Bank of California, N.A., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1321 (N.D. Ga. 2017).
· cites it 9× “O.C.G.A § 16-17-3, in turn, provides that a transaction that violates the Act will *1338 be void, and that a violator will have liability to the borrower, stating: Any person who violates subsection (a) or (b) of Code Section 16-17-2 shall be barred from the collection of any…”
Ruth v. Cherokee Funding, LLC, 820 S.E.2d 704 (Ga. 2018).
· cites it 4× “" Similarly, OCGA § 16-17-3 provides that any person who violates relevant provisions of the Payday Lending Act is "barred from the collection of any indebtedness created by said loan transaction," and the "transaction shall be void ab initio.”
Bankwest, Inc. v. Baker, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (N.D. Ga. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiffs argue that the Section 16-17-3 declares all payday loan contracts made by a non-exempt lender or deemed to have been made by a "de facto lender” uncollectible and void ab initio without regard to the Act’s effective date.”
Flagg v. First Premier Bank, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1351 (N.D. Ga. 2017).
· cites it 4× “§ 16-17-4(b) does not create a private cause of action for an aiding and abetting violation of the GPLA. The Court finds the following discussion persuasive: [T]he Court finds that the [GPLA] does not create a private right of action for aiding and abetting a violation of the…”
Bankwest, Inc. v. Thurbert E. Baker, 411 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 5× “Ga. Code Ann. § 16-17-3 . In addition, the State may bring an action for civil penalties against payday stores who violate subsections (a) or (b) “equal to three times the amount of any interest or charges to the borrowers in the unlawful transactions.”
Ruth v. Cherokee Funding, LLC, 304 Ga. 574 (Ga. 2018).
· cites it 4× “” Similarly, OCGA § 16-17-3 provides that any person who violates relevant provisions of the Payday Lending Act is “barred from the collection of any indebtedness created by said loan transaction,” and the “transaction shall be void ab initio.”
Steve Jhun v. Imagine Castle, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 16-17-3. As part of that argument, she also claimed that the trial court erred in applying an arbitration provision that was contained in the loan contracts.”
William Pace v. Hamilton Cove (N.J. 2024).
“In a successful action to enforce the provisions of this chapter, a court shall award a borrower, or class of borrowers, costs including reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
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.