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

O.C.G.A. § 33-37-40 (2019)

Determining value of security held by secured creditor

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
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) The value of any security held by a secured creditor shall be determined in one of the following ways, as the court may direct:

(1) By converting the same into money according to the terms of the agreement pursuant to which the security was delivered to such creditors; or

(2) By agreement, arbitration, compromise, or litigation between the creditor and the liquidator.

(b) The determination shall be under the supervision and control of the court with due regard for the recommendation of the liquidator. The amount so determined shall be credited upon the secured claim, and any deficiency shall be treated as an unsecured claim. If the claimant shall surrender his security to the liquidator, the entire claim shall be allowed as if unsecured.

History

Code 1981, § 33-37-40, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 1424, § 7.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 43 Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance, §§ 83 et seq., 95 et seq. ALR. - Validity, construction, and ap-

plication of Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act, 44 A.L.R.5th 683.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1992–1992 · leading case: Garamendi v. Ryles, 420 S.E.2d 633 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Garamendi v. Ryles, 420 S.E.2d 633 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Although common law favors appellant over appellee, the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act, former OCGA § 33-37-40 et seq., was in effect in this state at the times relevant to this appeal.”
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.