O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 44-12-205 (2019)

When gift certificate or credit memo presumed abandoned

✓ 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) A gift certificate or a credit memo issued in the ordinary course of an issuer’s business which remains unclaimed by the owner for more than five years after becoming payable or distributable is presumed abandoned. (b) In the case of a gift certificate, the amount presumed abandoned is the price paid by the purchaser for the gift certificate. In the case of a credit memo, the amount presumed abandoned is the amount credited to the recipient of the memo.

History

Code 1981, § 44-12-205, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 1506, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 1237, § 11.

Annotations

Law reviews. For comment, “Unwrapping Escheat: Unclaimed Property Laws and Gift Cards,” see 60 Emory L. J. 971 (2011).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS No presumption of abandonment. - Assessment of dormancy fees on gift cards and certificates and refusal to honor them after one year did not violate

O.C.G.A. § 44-12-205 of the Georgia Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act (DUPA), O.C.G.A. § 44-12-190 et seq; as the cards and certificates had not been

unclaimed by the plaintiffs for more than five years when the complaint was filed, they were not presumed abandoned, and DUPA did not apply. Simon Prop. Group, Inc. v. Benson, 278 Ga. App. 277, 628 S.E.2d 697, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 312 (2006), aff’d, 281 Ga. 744, 642 S.E.2d 687, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 238 (2007). Law governing claims by owners against property holders. - O.C.G.A. § 44-12-205(b), which simply provided that an amount equal to the price paid for an unclaimed card or certificate was to be paid to the state after five years, regardless of whether the card or certificate

previously expired or otherwise lost value pursuant to contractual terms, did not provide a basis for the owners of certain gift cards and certificates to bring an action against the holder of the cards and certificates that claimed that the dormancy fees and expiration dates on the cards and certificates violated the Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act; the relationship between the owners and the holder was governed by Georgia contract law. Benson v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 281 Ga. 744, 642 S.E.2d 687, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 238 (2007).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2006–2011 · leading case: Simon Prop. Grp., Inc. v. Benson, 628 S.E.2d 697 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Simon Prop. Grp., Inc. v. Benson, 628 S.E.2d 697 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 12× “Plaintiffs contend that Simon’s actions violate the DUPA, specifically OCGA § 44-12-205, which provides in pertinent part: “A gift certificate .”

Benson v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., 642 S.E.2d 687 (Ga. 2007). · cites it 6× “Owners’ complaint alleges that the expiration dates and dormancy fees violate OCGA §§ 44-12-205 and 44-12-226. Under the latter section, the expiration of statutory or contractual periods of limitation neither precludes the presumption of abandonment nor affects the holder’s…”

Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co. v. Sidamon-Eristoff, 755 F. Supp. 2d 556 (D.N.J. 2011). “, and Georgia, Ga.Code § 44-12-205, inter alia. Of those states, several escheat at full face value.”

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.