O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 40-3-38 (2019)

Fees

✓ 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) An application for a certificate of title shall be accompanied by the required fee when mailed or delivered to the commissioner or a designated agent. (b) An application for the naming of a lienholder on a certificate of title shall be accompanied by the required fee when mailed or delivered to the commissioner or a designated agent. (c) The commissioner shall be paid a fee of $18.00 for the filing of an application for any certificate of title and for the filing of the notice of a security interest or a lien on vehicles not required by law to be titled in this state. The commissioner may, by appropriate regulation, provide for additional fees not to exceed $18.00 for the special handling of applications for certificates of title and related documents. The commissioner shall be paid a fee of $8.00 for the filing of an application for a replacement certificate of title. The fee for issuance of a replacement certificate of title shall be the same whether mailed or delivered to the commissioner or an agent. (d) The above fees shall be required of all applicants except the State of Georgia and the United States of America.

History

Ga. L. 1961, p. 68, § 18; Ga. L. 1969, p.

92, §§ 2, 3; Ga. L. 1981, p. 883, § 8; Code 1981, § 40-3-36; Ga. L. 1984, p. 1194, § 2;

Ga. L. 1985, p. 485, § 1; Code 1981, § 403-38, as redesignated by Ga. L. 1990, p.

2048, § 3; Ga. L. 1992, p. 779, § 17; Ga. L. 1994, p. 1851, § 2.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Fee not applicable to postcertificate transactions. - Clear language of O.C.G.A. § 40-3-38(c) states that the charge authorized is one for an application for a certificate of title. When there is merely a subsequent transaction affecting title to a motor vehicle, there is no need or basis for application for a certificate of title on the vehicle, only a

need to reflect the transaction on the already-existing certificate of title. Additionally, O.C.G.A. § 40-3-27 specifically addresses that situation and limits the fee to $5.00. Fryer v. Easy Money Title Pawn, Inc., 183 B.R. 654, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 886 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 71. 66 Am. Jur. 2d, Records and Recording Laws, § 70. C.J.S. 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 96 et seq., 307 et seq.

U.L.A. Uniform Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title and Anti-Theft Act (U.L.A.) § 17.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1994–1995 · leading case: Fryer v. Easy Money Title Pawn, Inc. (In Re Fryer), 183 B.R. 654 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995).
Fryer v. Easy Money Title Pawn, Inc. (In Re Fryer), 183 B.R. 654 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995). · cites it 6× “The motion requests that I alter or amend my earlier judgment based on two grounds: (1) O.C.G.A. § 40-3-38 authorizes the $18.00 title fee imposed by defendant, thus my earlier findings that the authorized title fee is only $5.”
Johnsen v. Collins, 875 F. Supp. 1571 (S.D. Ga. 1994). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff claims that it hinders interstate trade in violation of the Commerce Clause of Art.”
Johnsen v. Collins, 875 F. Supp. 1571 (S.D. Ga. 1994). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff claims that it hinders interstate trade in violation of the Commerce Clause of Art.”
— 40-3-38(e) — 1 case
Fryer v. Easy Money Title Pawn, Inc. (In Re Fryer), 183 B.R. 654 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995). “The motion requests that I alter or amend my earlier judgment based on two grounds: (1) O.C.G.A. § 40-3-38 authorizes the $18.00 title fee imposed by defendant, thus my earlier findings that the authorized title fee is only $5.”
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.