O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 44-12-226 (2019)

Expiration of limitation specified by contract, statute, or court order not to affect duties required by this article

✓ 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

The expiration, before or after July 1, 1990, of any period of time specified by contract, statute, or court order during which a claim for money or property can be made or during which an action or proceeding

may be commenced or enforced to obtain payment of a claim for money or to recover property, does not prevent the money or property from being presumed abandoned nor affect any duty to file a report or to pay or deliver abandoned property to the commissioner as required by this article.

History

Code 1981, § 44-12-226, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 1506, § 1.

Annotations

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. § 44-12-226, which simply ensured that a

holder was not relieved of its obligation to deliver abandoned property to the state revenue commissioner, even though an owner’s claim for possession against a holder was barred by the statute of limitations, 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, O.C.G.A. Art. 5, Ch. 12, T. 44; 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).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Regulation of pre-paid stored-value “gift cards”, 46 A.L.R.6th 437.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2006–2007 · leading case: Benson v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., 642 S.E.2d 687 (Ga. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Benson v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., 642 S.E.2d 687 (Ga. 2007). · cites it 10× “OCGA § 44-12-226; Mayo, supra. The DUPA is also designed to relieve holders “ ‘from annoyance, expense and liability, to preclude multiple liability, and to give the .”

Simon Prop. Grp., Inc. v. Benson, 628 S.E.2d 697 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “Plaintiffs further assert that the expiration dates violate OCGA § 44-12-226, which provides that the expiration of contractual and statutory limitation periods does not affect the holder’s obligation to turn the property over to the state.”

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.