O.C.G.A. § 44-12-137 (2019)

fied the 30-day requirement of § 44-12131(a)(1); the customer’s action against the pawnbroker based on an illegal duration accordingly failed. Marshall v. Speedee Cash, 292 Ga. App. 790, 665 S.E.2d 888, 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 861 (2008). Pawnshop charges are expenses actually incurred by the pawnbroker in providing a service in connection with the transaction. Fryer v. Easy Money Title Pawn, Inc., 183 B.R. 322, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 788 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995). Service charge constituting interest. - Pawnshop charge which included a 23% service charge for the customers use of the pawned automobile, the risk to the lender of that continued use, checking and processing the title to the automobile apparently in addition to an itemized title fee charged under the contract, verifying insurance on the automobile and making a log for the sheriff’s department, constituted interest rather than pawnshop charges since it did not reimburse specific expenses actually incurred by the pawnbroker. Fryer v. Easy Money Title Pawn, Inc., 183 B.R. 322, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 788 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995). Unit period determination. - In single advance, single payment transactions in which the term is less than a year and equal to a whole number of months, pawnbroker-creditors may make the unit period determination in the alternative, that is, on the basis of the term as a number of months or on the basis of the term as a number of days. Hooks v. Cobb Ctr. Pawn & Jewelry Brokers, Inc., 241 Ga. App. 305, 527 S.E.2d 566, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 1624 (1999), cert. denied, No. S00C0615, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 406 (Ga. May 5, 2000). Pawnbroker’s right to self-help. - Although O.C.G.A. §§ 44-12-130(5) and 44-12-131(a)(3) grant the pawnbroker the right to self-help repossession upon default without the necessity of filing a lien, this remedy is intended to apply to the defaulting pledgor, not a bona fide purchaser for value with no notice of the pawnbroker’s claim. Cobb Ctr. Pawn & Jewelry Brokers, Inc. v. Gordon, 242 Ga. App. 73, 529 S.E.2d 138, 2000 Ga. App. LEXIS 93 (2000).

Motor vehicle as subject of pawn transaction. - Bankruptcy court found that the creditor was not entitled to summary judgment regarding the debtor’s repossessed vehicle action where the pawnshop agreement in issue violated the statutory requirements for automobile title pawns under Georgia law, O.C.G.A. § 44-14-130. Johnson v. Speedee Cash of Columbus, Inc., 289 B.R. 251, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1445 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2002). LLC that seized a Chapter 13 debtor’s car 16 hours before the debtor declared bankruptcy, and sold the car without keeping records, was ordered to pay the debtor $6,579.57 for loss of the car, $300 for lost personal property that was in the car, $2,356.70 in emotional distress damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k), because the evidence showed that the LLC knew the debtor declared bankruptcy before the LLC sold the car. Although the LLC claimed that the LLC was not liable under § 362 because the debtor forfeited rights in the car pursuant to the Georgia Pawnshop Act (GPA), O.C.G.A. § 44-14-403, when the debtor failed to repay a debt, the court rejected that argument because the LLC assessed interest rates over the course of the contract that exceeded the rates allowed by the GPA, such that a Motor Vehicle Pawn Contract the debtor signed was void from the contract’s inception pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 44-12-131. Spinner v. Cash In A Hurry, LLC, 398 B.R. 84, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 3620 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2008). Creditor’s motion for relief from automatic stay seeking permission to repossess a vehicle that the debtor pledged to the creditor pursuant to a title pawn transaction was granted because nothing in the Bankruptcy Code permitted a Chapter 13 debtor to modify a title pawn contract under Georgia law by treating a pawnbroker as a secured creditor where state-law redemption period, as extended by 11 U.S.C. § 108(b), had expired and the pawnbroker had adequately asserted the pawnbroker’s rights pre-confirmation. TitleMax of Ga., Inc. v. Hamilton (In re Hamilton), 635 B.R. 877, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 82 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2022). Class action against pawn shop failed. - Pawnshop customer’s action, alleging that a pawnshop failed to disclose all of the interest and charges that it assessed against the customer and against purported class members who were similarly situated, as required by O.C.G.A. § 44-12-138(b)(6) and (8), failed upon a finding that the pawnshop had made a good faith offer to avoid litigation by tendering to the customer a check in the amount collected beyond the principal, as required by O.C.G.A. § 44-12- 131(a)(7)(A); accordingly, the court found that the customer had not sufficiently complied with the ante litem notice provisions with respect to the other members of the class, who were not sufficiently identified in order to allow a good faith offer to be made to them. Mack v. Ga. Auto Pawn, Inc., 262 Ga. App. 277, 585 S.E.2d 661, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 882 (2003).