Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 16-17-3 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 16 CRIMES AND OFFENSES

Section 17. Payday Lending, 16-17-1 through 16-17-10.

ARTICLE 5 SANCTIONS AGAINST LICENSED PERSONS FOR OFFENSES INVOLVING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES OR MARIJUANA

16-17-3. Collection of indebtedness barred; civil action permitted by borrowers.

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.

(Code 1981, §16-17-3, enacted by Ga. L. 2004, p. 60, § 3.)

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).

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).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 16-17-3

Total Results: 5  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

McDaniel v. Thomas, 285 S.E.2d 156 (Ga. 1981).

Cited 93 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 24, 1981 | 248 Ga. 632

Copy

W. Sky Fin., LLC v. State, 300 Ga. 340 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 31, 2016 | 793 S.E.2d 357

...First, Defendants assert the Payday Lending Act confers no authority for the State to obtain injunctive relief. While the Act does not expressly authorize injunctive relief, we view *350the language of the Act as contemplating such relief. 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. (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 16-17-3 also establishes that any offending lender shall be “liable to the borrower in each unlawful transaction for three times the amount of any interest or other charges to the borrower.” Pursuant to subsection (a) of OCGA § 16-17-4, any p...
...(“Modified Injunction”), dated October 21, 2015. In the Modified Injunction the trial court found that, notwithstanding Defendants’ compliance with the Original Injunction, the State was entitled to additional equitable relief pursuant to OCGA § 16-17-3 because, the court found, “[tjhere is a substantial threat that [the State] will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, as there may not be sufficient funds available to [the State] in the event final judgment is ent...
...of predatory conduct described by the Act. A lender who violates the Payday Lending Act is barred from collecting any indebtedness created by the unlawful loan, not just interest, and declares such a loan transaction to be “void ab initio.” OCGA § 16-17-3. Such a lender is liable to the borrower for three times the amount of any interest or other charges imposed by the transaction (OCGA § 16-17-3) and is liable to the state for a civil penalty equal to three times that amount (OCGA§ 16-17-4)....
...and thus the remedies available to borrowers under OCGA § 7-4-10 are not available to the State. Either a borrower or the State, as a representative of borrowers or an ascertainable class of borrowers, may pursue the remedies available under OCGA §§ 16-17-3 and 16-17-4, however....
...By its terms, the Payday Lending Act grants a right of action to individuals or a class of individuals. “A civil action under Code Section 16-17-2 maybe brought on behalf of an individual borrower or on behalf of an ascertainable class of borrowers.” OCGA§ 16-17-3....
Copy

Bryant v. State, 560 S.E.2d 23 (Ga. 2002).

Cited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 25, 2002 | 274 Ga. 798, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 603

Copy

Ruth v. Cherokee Funding, LLC, 820 S.E.2d 704 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 22, 2018 | 304 Ga. 574

...Pursuant to OCGA § 7-3-29 (a), "[a]ny person who shall make loans under [the Industrial Loan Act] without first obtaining a license ... shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and any contract made under [the Industrial Loan Act] by such person shall be null and void." 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." In addition, OCGA § 16-17-3 establishes that any offending lender shall "be liable to the borrower in each unlawful transaction for three times the amount of any interest or other charges to the borrower." After the trial court denied the motion to dismiss in part,...
Copy

Ruth v. Cherokee Funding, LLC, 304 Ga. 574 (Ga. 2018).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 22, 2018

...]ny person who shall make loans under [the Industrial Loan Act] without first obtaining a license . . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and any contract made under [the Industrial Loan Act] by such person shall be null and void.” 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.” In addition, OCGA § 16-17-3 establishes that any offending lender shall “be liable to the borrower in each unlawful transaction for three times the amount of any interest or other charges to the borrower.” 13 After the trial court denied the motio...