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.
As used in this chapter, the term: (1) “Debt adjusting” means doing business in debt adjustments, budget counseling, debt management, or debt pooling service or holding oneself out, by words of similar import, as providing services to debtors in the management of their debts and contracting with a debtor for a fee to: (A) Effect the adjustment, compromise, or discharge of any account, note, or other indebtedness of the debtor; or (B) Receive from the debtor and disburse to his or her creditors any money or other thing of value. (2) “Person” means an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, or other legal entity. (3) “Resides” means to live in a particular place, whether on a temporary or permanent basis.
History
Ga. L. 1956, p. 797, § 1; Ga. L. 2003, p.
392, § 1; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1088, § 18/SB 148.
Annotations
Cross references. Operation of credit repair services organization, § 16-9-59. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Forum selection provision invalid when denying debtor rights. - Trial court erred in granting a Texas corporation’s motion to dismiss a debtors’ action alleging that the debt adjustment services a Texas corporation provided them violated Georgia statutes specifically regulating the business of “debt adjusting” as set forth in O.C.G.A. § 18-5-1 et seq. on the ground that the parties’ contract contained a provision selecting Texas as the forum for any dispute because, if enforced, the contract’s forum selection and choice of law provisions requiring the debtors to
bring their action before a Texas court applying Texas law would operate in tandem to deprive the debtors of specific statutory protections set forth in § 18-5-1 et seq., relating to debt adjustment agreements; because that would violate Georgia’s public policy established in those provisions, the forum selection and choice of law provisions in the contract were invalid and unenforceable. Moon v. CSA - Credit Solutions of Am., Inc., 304 Ga. App. 555, 696 S.E.2d 486, 2010 Ga. App. LEXIS 568 (2010).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 15A Am. Jur. 2d, Collection and Credit Agencies, §§ 2, 23. ALR. Validity, construction, and application
of state debt adjusting statutes, 90 A.L.R.6th 1.
Notes of Decisions
Moon v. CSA — Credit Solutions of Am., Inc., 696 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 20× “The Moons sued CSA in Georgia claiming that the debt adjustment services CSA provided under the contract violated Georgia statutes specifically regulating the business of "debt adjusting" as set forth in OCGA § 18-5-1 et seq. The trial court granted CSA's motion to dismiss the…”
Walker v. Amerireach. Com, 703 S.E.2d 100 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “We have also reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint alleging that a company violated Georgia’s debt adjustment statutes, OCGA § 18-5-1 et seq. Moon v. CSA-Credit Solutions of America, 304 Ga.”
Penso Holdings, Inc. v. Cleveland, 749 S.E.2d 821 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “(collectively “Pensó”), claiming that services Pensó had provided under a written agreement violated Georgia statutes specifically regulating the business of debt adjusting as set forth in OCGA § 18-5-1 et seq. Pensó moved to stay the litigation and compel arbitration, “pursuant…”
Penso Holdings, Inc. D/B/A Capital Debt Settlement v. Melissa Cleveland (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “(collectively “Penso”), claiming that services Penso had provided under a written agreement violated Georgia statutes specifically regulating the business of debt adjusting as set forth in OCGA § 18-5-1 et. seq. Penso moved to stay the litigation and compel arbitration,…”
Phan v. Peak Debt Consumption, LLC (N.D. Ga. 2022).
“§ 18-5-1(1). Under the statute, “[a]ny person engaged in debt adjusting shall disburse to the appropriate creditors all funds received from a debtor, less any fees authorized by this chapter, within 30 days of receipt of such funds.”
— 18-5-1(1) — 3 cases
Phan v. Peak Debt Consumption, LLC (N.D. Ga. 2022).
“§ 18-5-1(1). Under the statute, “[a]ny person engaged in debt adjusting shall disburse to the appropriate creditors all funds received from a debtor, less any fees authorized by this chapter, within 30 days of receipt of such funds.”
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.