O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 18-5-2 (2019)

Debt adjusting permitted

✓ 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

In the course of engaging in debt adjusting, it shall be unlawful for any person to accept from a debtor who resides in this state, either directly or indirectly, any charge, fee, contribution, or combination thereof in an amount in excess of 7.5 percent of the amount paid monthly by such debtor to such person for distribution to creditors of such debtor; provided, however, no provision of this chapter shall prohibit any person, in the course of engaging in debt adjusting, from imposing upon a debtor who resides in this state a reasonable and separate charge or fee for insufficient funds transactions.

History

Ga. L. 1956, p. 797, § 2; Ga. L. 2003, p.

392, § 2; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1088, § 18/SB 148.

Annotations

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

Cited in 6 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: Am. Debt Found., Inc. v. Hodzic, 720 S.E.2d 283 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Am. Debt Found., Inc. v. Hodzic, 720 S.E.2d 283 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 10× “ADF thereafter refunded Hodzic with a portion of the payments she had made to the company; however, Hodzic filed suit against the company, alleging violations of OCGA § 18-5-2, which, as amended in July 2003, provides that [i]n the course of engaging in debt adjusting, it shall…”

Moon v. CSA — Credit Solutions of Am., Inc., 696 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 12× “Specifically, the Moons alleged that CSA violated OCGA § 18-5-2 [1] by charging excessive fees and violated OCGA § 18-5-3.”

In re: Maliah Isis Bush; Charles W. Wills, Chapter 7 Tr. v. Turnbull Law Grp., LLC (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2026). · cites it 5× “5% allowed by O.C.G.A §18-5-2 and by failing to disburse all funds to Debtor’s creditors within thirty (30) days of receipt as required by O.”

Pries v. Greenpath, Inc. (M.D. Ga. 2021). · cites it 4× “” O.C.G.A. § 18-5-2. Pries alleges that in July 2018, she paid GreenPath $452.”

Paul A. Schofield, as Chapter 7 Tr. of the Est v. The Brian A. Moore Law Firm LLC (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2025). · cites it 4× “5% in fees from the amount paid by Debtors for its debt adjustment services in violation of O.C.G.A. § 18-5-2 and routinely failed to make disbursements to creditors within 30 days of receipt of such funds in violation of O.”

Phan v. Peak Debt Consumption, LLC (N.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 18-5-2. Debt adjusting is defined as “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.”

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.