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

O.C.G.A. § 18-5-3 (2019)

Exemption for debt adjustment by certain individuals or entities

✓ 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

Nothing in this chapter shall apply to those situations involving debt adjusting incurred in the practice of law in this state. Nothing in this chapter shall apply to those persons or entities who incidentally engage in debt adjustment to adjust the indebtedness owed to said person or entity. Nothing in this chapter shall apply to the following entities or their subsidiaries: the Federal National Mortgage Association; the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; a bank, bank holding company, trust company, savings and loan association, credit union, credit card bank, or savings bank that is regulated and supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, or the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance; or persons as defined in Code Section 7-3-3 operating under Chapter 3 of Title 7, the “Georgia Installment Loan Act.”

History

Ga. L. 1956, p. 797, § 4; Ga. L. 2003, p. 392, § 3; Ga. L. 2015, p. 5, § 18/HB 90; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1088, § 18/SB 148; Ga. L. 2020, p. 156, § 9/SB 462.

The 2020 amendment, effective June 30, 2020, substituted “Georgia Installment Loan Act” for “Georgia Industrial Loan Act” at the end of the Code section.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 15A Am. Jur. 2d, Collection and Credit Agencies, § 24. ALR. Validity, construction, and application

of state debt adjusting statutes, 90 A.L.R.6th 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2025–2026 · leading case: Paul A. Schofield, as Chapter 7 Tr. of the Est v. The Brian A. Moore Law Firm LLC (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
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 25× “) It additionally raises the history of the GDAA and the elimination of “incidentally” from the language of O.C.G.A. § 18-5-3 in opposition to Plaintiff’s interpretation of the GDAA.”
In re: Maliah Isis Bush; Charles W. Wills, Chapter 7 Tr. v. Turnbull Law Grp., LLC (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2026). · cites it 5× “Defendant also argues the Court should dismiss Count Four because the GDAA does not apply to Defendant “as [it is] a law firm that provided legal services to Debtor” which is expressly exempted from GDAA and “any claim is barred by the exemption set forth in O.C.G.A. §18-5-3, as…”
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.