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.
(a) In this Code section, the following rules determine a debtor’s location: (1) A debtor who is an individual is located at the individual’s principal residence; (2) A debtor that is an organization and has only one place of business is located at its place of business; and (3) A debtor that is an organization and has more than one place of business is located at its chief executive office. (b) A cause of action in the nature of a claim for relief under this article is governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the debtor is located when the transfer is made or the obligation is incurred.
History
Code 1981, § 18-2-80, enacted by Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 4A-1/SB 65.
Annotations
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 37 Am. Jur. 2d, Fraudulent Conveyances and Transfers, § 126 et seq.
Notes of Decisions
RES-GA McDonough, LLC v. Taylor English Duma LLP, 807 S.E.2d 381 (Ga. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” See former OCGA § 18-2-80 (a); OCGA § 11-1-103 (b). Just as the plain language of UFTA shows no “clear indication in its language that displaces NeSmith’s *449 construction of the nonassignment statute, which fraud provisions have not been amended in any material way,”…”
Miller v. Lomax, 596 S.E.2d 232 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “However, the transactions at issue here, including the gift to Carolyn Miller and the subsequent purchase and deeding of property in the name of Ray’s, may be challenged as fraud against the Miller plaintiffs’ rights as creditors under OCGA§ 18-2-21 and the Uniform Fraudulent…”
Res-Ga Hightower, LLC v. Golshani, 778 S.E.2d 805 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Former OCGA § 18-2-80 (a) 6 provided: Unless displaced by the provisions of this article, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relating to principal and agent, estoppel, laches, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, insolvency,…”
Interfinancial Midtown, Inc. v. Choate Constr. Co., 806 S.E.2d 255 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Primarily, the legislature did not repeal [OCGA] § 18-2-21. In addition, UFTA provides that, "[u]nless displaced by the provisions of this article, the principles of law and equity, including .”
Wessinger v. Spivey (In re Galbreath), 475 B.R. 749 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2003).
· cites it 3× “” O.C.G.A. § 18-2-80. This indicates that the Georgia legislature was cognizant of the role of O.”
Interfinancial Midtown, Inc. v. Choate Constr. Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 18-2-80. This indicates that the Georgia legislature was cognizant of the role of OCGA § 18-2-21 in relation to the repeal of § 18-2-22 and the adoption of UFTA.”
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.