O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 44-14-490 (2019)

Lien for treatment, board, or care of animal; right to retain possession

✓ 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

Statute text

(a) Every licensed veterinarian shall have a lien on each animal or pet treated, boarded, or cared for by him or her while in his or her custody and under contract with the owner of the animal or pet for the payment of charges for the treatment, board, or care of the animal or pet; and the veterinarian shall have the right to retain the animal or pet until the charges are paid.

(b) (1) As used in this subsection, the term:

(A) "Charges" means:

(i) Any charges, fees, expenses, and reimbursements which have been contracted for, agreed to, or otherwise mutually acknowledged by written agreement, course of conduct, or understanding, including but not limited to:

(I) Board, care, services, and treatment of the animal or pet, whether provided by the operator or by a third party and incurred by the operator;

(II) Farrier and veterinary fees and expenses incurred by the operator for or on behalf of the boarded animal or pet; and

(III) Fees and expenses for transportation of the animal or pet; and

(ii) Late payment fees, returned check fees, and all costs of collection, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation and costs of sale.

Charges shall not include fees, expenses, or commissions of any kind relating to purchase, sale, or lease of such animal or pet, other than a sale pursuant to Code Section 44-14-491.

(B) "Facility for boarding animals or pets" shall include, but not be limited to, veterinary hospitals, boarding kennels, stables, livestock sales barns, and humane societies.

(2) Every operator of a facility for boarding animals or pets which facility is licensed by the Department of Agriculture, other than a licensed veterinarian, shall have a lien on each animal or pet in his or her care for the payment of all charges of such operator; and the operator of such a facility shall have the right to retain the animal or pet until the charges are paid in full.

History

(Ga. L. 1974, p. 330, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 58, § 1/HB 201.)

Annotations

The 2005 amendment, effective July 1, 2005, rewrote this Code section, which read: "Every licensed veterinarian and every operator of a facility for boarding animals or pets shall have a lien on each animal or pet treated, boarded, or cared for by them while in their custody and under contract with the owner of the animal or pet for the payment of charges for the treatment, board, or care of the animal or pet; and the veterinarian or operator of a facility shall have the right to retain the animal or pet until the charges are paid. Facilities for boarding animals or pets shall include, but not be limited to, veterinary hospitals, boarding kennels, stables, livestock sales barns, and humane societies."

Cross references. - Regulation of veterinary practice generally, Ch. 50, T. 43.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Retaining animals until charges paid. - Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the veterinarian because the owner of the dog agreed to have the veterinarian treat the dog for the parvo virus in exchange for payment of at least the estimated costs; the owner did not cite any evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to the accuracy or validity of any of the charges on the itemized bill; and the veterinarian acted properly in relying on the veterinary lien statute to retain the dog when the owner failed to pay the bills. Gomez v. Innocent, 330 Ga. App. 260, 765 S.E.2d 405 (2014).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 8 Am. Jur. 2d, Bailments, §§ 190 et seq., 194 et seq.

C.J.S. - 8 C.J.S., Bailments, § 80 et seq.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2004–2014 · leading case: Medlin v. Morganstern, 601 S.E.2d 359 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Medlin v. Morganstern, 601 S.E.2d 359 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “The Morgansterns filed a counterclaim against Medlin and a cross-claim against March, asserting a lien against the colt pursuant to OCGA § 44-14-490 and a quantum meruit claim.”

Gomez v. Innocent, 746 S.E.2d 645 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Gomez next argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether there was an agreement, course of conduct, or understanding between the parties such that Innocent was justified in relying on the veterinary…”

Gomez v. Innocent, 765 S.E.2d 405 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 12× “This court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for determination of whether genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether “Innocent was justified in relying on the veterinary lien statute, OCGA § 44-14-490, to retain the dog when…”

Josh Gomez v. Gary Innocent (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Gomez next argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether there was an 5 agreement, course of conduct, or understanding between the parties such that Innocent was justified in relying on the…”

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.