O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-8-102 (2019)

Residential mortgage fraud

✓ 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

A person commits the offense of residential mortgage fraud when, with the intent to defraud, such person: (1) Knowingly makes any deliberate misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission during the mortgage lending process with the intention that it be relied on by a mortgage lender, borrower, or any other party to the mortgage lending process; (2) Knowingly uses or facilitates the use of any deliberate misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission, knowing the same to contain a misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission, during the mortgage lending process with the intention that it be relied on by a mortgage lender, borrower, or any other party to the mortgage lending process; (3) Receives any proceeds or any other funds in connection with a residential mortgage closing that such person knew resulted from a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of this Code section; (4) Conspires to violate any of the provisions of paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this Code section; or (5) Files or causes to be filed with the official registrar of deeds of any county of this state any document such person knows to contain a deliberate misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission. An offense of residential mortgage fraud shall not be predicated solely upon information lawfully disclosed under federal disclosure laws, regulations, and interpretations related to the mortgage lending process nor upon truthful information contained in documents filed

with the official registrar of deeds of any county of this state for the stated purpose of correcting scrivener’s errors, mistakes, inadvertent misstatements, or omissions contained in previously filed documents.

History

(Code 1981, § 16-8-102, enacted by Ga. L. 2005, p. 848, § 2/SB 100; Ga. L. 2012, p. 668, § 2/HB 237.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Indictment sufficient. - Trial court erred in quashing an indictment for counts of residential mortgage fraud, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-8-102, and counts of felony theft by deception, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-8-3, because: (1) certain allegations between counts in the indictment were mere surplusage and did not invalidate the indictment; (2) the indictment was not duplicitous under O.C.G.A. § 16-1-7(a)(2); (3) the indictment was sufficient pursuant to the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 17-7-54(a) to withstand general and special demurrers as each count sufficiently stated the offense; and (4) each count was sufficient to charge each of the named defendants as either the actual perpetrator or as a party to the crime pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 16-2-20(a) and 16-2-21. State v. Corhen, 306 Ga. App. 495, 700 S.E.2d 912 (2010). Theft by deception and residential mortgage fraud predicate acts for RICO. - Trial court erred in dismissing a mortgagor’s RICO claim because the complaint alleged that the mortgagor was

injured by at least two predicate acts (theft by deception and residential mortgage fraud) which could constitute a pattern of racketeering activity, and the mortgagee did not show that the mortgagor could not possibly introduce evidence within the framework of the complaint sufficient to grant relief on the RICO claim. Mbigi v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 336 Ga. App. 316, 785 S.E.2d 8 (2016). Evidence sufficient for conviction. - Evidence that the defendant, a loan officer who handled the closing on a codefendant’s home, was a party to a scheme whereby the defendant gave the codefendant money for the downpayment before closing, the codefendant falsely stated in the loan application that the codefendant had not borrowed the down payment, and later defaulted on the loan was sufficient to convict the defendant of residential mortgage fraud as a party to that crime. Gilford v. State, 295 Ga. App. 651, 673 S.E.2d 40 (2009), cert. denied, No. S09C0827, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 258 (Ga. 2009).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2022 · leading case: Mbigi v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 785 S.E.2d 8 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mbigi v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 785 S.E.2d 8 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “Wells Fargo argues, however, that five of the acts alleged to be residential mortgage fraud are not crimes for purposes of OCGA § 16-8-102 and that the other two acts, which involved allegations of misrepresentations and omissions that must have occurred at or before the loan…”
State v. Corhen, 700 S.E.2d 912 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 12× “The record in this case shows that the State charged the defendants with ten counts of residential mortgage fraud, OCGA § 16-8-102, 2 and three counts of felony theft by deception, OCGA § 16-8-3.”
Jenkins v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, 822 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (M.D. Ga. 2011). · cites it 10× “lender, borrower, or any other party to the mortgage lending process; (3) receives any proceeds or any other funds in connection with a residential mortgage closing that such person knew resulted from a violation of paragraph (1) or (2); (4) conspires to violate any of the…”
Dixon Et Al. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.., 824 S.E.2d 760 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “See OCGA § 16-14-3 (9) (A) (ix) (2014); OCGA § 16-14-3 (9) (A) (xl) (2014). Dixon has sufficiently alleged mortgage fraud.”
In Re Kota Chalfant Suttle, 701 S.E.2d 154 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 2× “25 (91 SC 160, 27 LE2d 162) (1970), to one felony count of residential mortgage fraud, see OCGA §§ 16-8-102 (2) and 16-8-105 (a), and was given a misdemeanor sentence of six months probation as a first offender under OCGA § 17-10-5.”
Cmty. & S. Bank v. Clear Creek Props., 775 S.E.2d 752 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “Therefore, we also agree with the Bank that the trial court erred in denying its directed verdict on the First and Second HFI Notes and the Other Notes, in submitting the issue of whether the Bank had violated OCGA § 16-8-102 to the jury, and in charging the jury on the statute.”
State v. Pittman, 690 S.E.2d 661 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “6 OCGA § 16-8-102. 7 OCGA § 16-9-1 (a). 8 OCGA § 16-8-2.”
Gilford v. State, 673 S.E.2d 40 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-8-102 provides in pertinent part: A person commits the offense of residential mortgage fraud when, with the intent to defraud, such person: (1) Knowingly makes any deliberate misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission during the mortgage lending process with the…”
Brown v. First Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 753 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (N.D. Ga. 2009). · cites it 4× “Brawn’s Georgia RICO claims are predicated on federal mail and wire fraud as well as on residential mortgage fraud, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-8-102. To the extent that the state claims are based upon 18 U.”
Brown v. First Tennessee Bank Nat. Ass'n, 753 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (N.D. Ga. 2009). · cites it 4× “Brown's Georgia RICO claims are predicated on federal mail and wire fraud as well as on residential mortgage fraud, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-8-102. To the extent that the state claims are based upon 18 U.”
Michael J. Bazemore v. U. S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 6× “” OCGA § 16-8-102 (5). 6 “Mail and wire fraud occurs when a person (1) intentionally participates in a scheme to defraud another of money or property and (2) uses the mails or wires in 10 The Bazemores allege several predicate acts to form the basis of their Georgia RICO claim:…”
— 16-8-102(2) — 1 case
Cmty. & S. Bank v. Clear Creek Props., 775 S.E.2d 752 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). “Therefore, we also agree with the Bank that the trial court erred in denying its directed verdict on the First and Second HFI Notes and the Other Notes, in submitting the issue of whether the Bank had violated OCGA § 16-8-102 to the jury, and in charging the jury on the statute.”
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.