O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 18-5-4 (2019)

Penalty for unlawfully engaging in business of debt adjusting

✓ 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) Any person who engages in debt adjusting in violation of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) Without limiting the applicability of subsection (a) of this Code section:

(1) Any person who engages in debt adjusting in violation of the provisions of Code Section 18-5-3.1 or subsection (b) of Code Section 18-5-3.2 shall further be liable for a civil fine of not less than $50,000.00; and

(2) Any person who engages in debt adjusting in violation of the provisions of Code Section 18-5-2 or subsection (a) of Code Section 18-5-3.2 shall further be liable to the debtor in an amount equal to the total of all fees, charges, or contributions paid by the debtor plus $5,000.00. Such debtor shall have the right to bring a cause of action directly against such person for violation of the provisions of this chapter.

(c) The Attorney General and prosecuting attorneys shall have the authority to conduct the criminal prosecution of all cases arising under this chapter and to conduct civil prosecution of cases arising under this chapter.

(d) A violation of Code Section 18-5-2, 18-5-3.1, or 18-5-3.2 shall additionally be a violation of Part 2 of Article 15 of Chapter 1 of Title 10, the “Fair Business Practices Act of 1975.”

History

Ga. L. 1956, p. 797, § 3; Ga. L. 2003, p.

392, § 6; Ga. L. 2004, p. 631, § 18; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1088, § 18/SB 148.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Legislation regulating, taxing, or forbidding business of debt adjusting, 95 A.L.R.2d 1354.

Validity, construction, and application of state debt adjusting statutes, 90 A.L.R.6th 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: Moon v. CSA — Credit Solutions of Am., Inc., 696 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Moon v. CSA — Credit Solutions of Am., Inc., 696 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 20× “The Moons contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint because the complaint alleges that they were harmed when CSA violated Georgia’s debt adjustment statutes and, thus, the *559 complaint was specifically authorized by OCGA § 18-5-4 (b) (2). 4 They argue…”

Am. Debt Found., Inc. v. Hodzic, 720 S.E.2d 283 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 18-5-4 (b) (2). 3 The class was specifically defined as “[a]ll Georgia residents from whom ADF accepted fees and contributions on or after July 1, 2003 in an amount in excess of 7.”

Pries v. Greenpath, Inc. (M.D. Ga. 2021). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 18-5-4. C. Whether the Plaintiffs Satisfied the GFBPA’s Notice Requirement GreenPath argues that the plaintiffs’ GFBPA claims should be dismissed because the pre-suit notice sent by Pries to GreenPath did “not identify or reasonably describe an unfair or deceptive act…”

Phan v. Peak Debt Consumption, LLC (N.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 18-5-4(d) provides that a violation of the GDAA “shall additionally be a violation of” the Georgia FBPA.”

In re: Maliah Isis Bush; Charles W. Wills, Chapter 7 Tr. v. Turnbull Law Grp., LLC (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2026). · cites it 2× “77 in damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. §18-5-4(b)(1)-(2). Id. ¶¶ 33–44.”

— 18-5-4(b)(1) — 1 case

In re: Maliah Isis Bush; Charles W. Wills, Chapter 7 Tr. v. Turnbull Law Grp., LLC (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2026). “77 in damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. §18-5-4(b)(1)-(2). Id. ¶¶ 33–44.”

— 18-5-4(b)(2) — 1 case

Moon v. CSA — Credit Solutions of Am., Inc., 696 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). “The Moons contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint because the complaint alleges that they were harmed when CSA violated Georgia’s debt adjustment statutes and, thus, the *559 complaint was specifically authorized by OCGA § 18-5-4 (b) (2). 4 They argue…”

— 18-5-4(d) — 1 case

Phan v. Peak Debt Consumption, LLC (N.D. Ga. 2022). “O.C.G.A. § 18-5-4(d) provides that a violation of the GDAA “shall additionally be a violation of” the Georgia FBPA.”

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.