O.C.G.A.
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.
(a) The fees of notaries public shall be as follows: (1) Administering an oath in any case ....................... $ 2.00 (2) Each attendance on any person to make proof as a notary public and certifying to same .................
2.00
(3) Every other certificate ......................................
2.00
(b) It shall not be lawful for any notary public to charge a greater sum than $4.00 for each service performed. Said sum shall include a fee of $2.00 for performing the notarial act and a fee of $2.00 for an attendance to make proof as a notary public and certifying to same if such certification, which shall be issued by the clerk of superior court of the county in which the notary public was appointed or the Georgia Superior Court Clerks’ Cooperative Authority, is required. Registering shall be paid for by the party who has the service performed. The fee for all official acts which the notary may perform shall be the same as those prescribed for other officers who are likewise permitted to perform them. (c) A notary public need not charge fees for notarial acts. (d) A notary public shall inform the person requesting any notarial act, prior to performing the act, the fees permitted for each act. (Laws 1792, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 352; Code 1863, § 3628; Code 1868, § 3653; Code 1873, § 3704; Code 1882, § 3704; Civil Code 1895, § 506; Ga. L. 1898, p. 106, § 1; Ga. L. 1904, p. 97, § 1; Civil Code 1910, § 624; Code 1933, § 71-110; Ga. L. 1947, p. 1108, § 1; Ga. L. 1984, p. 1105, § 1; Ga. L. 1997, p. 673, § 3.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS No private civil cause of action could be implied. - In response to certified questions from a federal action, a private civil cause of action could not be implied to remedy a violation of O.C.G.A. § 45-17-11; the question arose with respect to a mortgagee’s charges that included substantial notary fees with respect to a refinancing transaction. Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., 287 Ga. 448, 697 S.E.2d 166 (2010). District court did not err in concluding
that the notary fee statute, O.C.G.A. § 45-17-11, provided borrowers with no private cause of action because Georgia’s Supreme Court, in response to a certified question, declared that a private cause of action could not be implied to remedy a violation of § 45-17-11. Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., 626 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2010). Voluntary payment doctrine not a bar to recovery. - In response to certified questions from a federal action which
arose with respect to a mortgagee’s charges that included substantial notary fees from a refinancing transaction, it was determined that the voluntary payment doctrine of O.C.G.A. § 13-1-13 did not bar a breach of contract claim based on the excessiveness of the charges, as there was sufficient artifice, deception, or fraudulent practice by the mortgagee’s misrepresentation under O.C.G.A. § 45-17-11(d) that the charges were ‘‘reasonable and necessary.’’ Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., 287 Ga. 448, 697 S.E.2d 166 (2010). No tolling of limitation period. - In response to certified questions from a federal action which arose with respect to a mortgagee’s charges that included substantial notary fees from a refinancing transaction, it was determined that even if there was actual fraud by the mortgagee, there was no tolling of the limitations periods for claims of fraud and money had and received pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 9-3-25 and 9-3-31, as the mortgagors could have discovered the im-
propriety of the notary fees by simple reference to O.C.G.A. § 45-17-11. Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., 287 Ga. 448, 697 S.E.2d 166 (2010). Corporation that employed notaries public not liable. - In response to certified questions from a federal action, and under the plain and unambiguous language of Georgia’s notary statute, a corporation employing notaries public was not subject directly to O.C.G.A. § 45-17-11, and the corporation was not subject to vicarious liability for a violation thereof, although the corporation could still be held liable if the corporation procured or otherwise qualified as a party to or participant in such a violation by a notary pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-30; the question arose with respect to a mortgagee’s charges that included substantial notary fees with respect to a refinancing transaction. Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., 287 Ga. 448, 697 S.E.2d 166 (2010).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Validity and effect of agreement to give bank all, or part, of fees of notary for protesting paper, 25 ALR 170.
Notes of Decisions
Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 697 S.E.2d 166 (Ga. 2010).
· cites it 112× “In 2007, the Anthonys filed suit against American General in the federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia, asserting a cause of action under OCGA § 45-17-11, along with claims for breach of contract, fraud, and money had and received.”
Bellsouth Telecomm., LLC Et Al. v. Cobb Cnty. Et Al., 802 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “Nevertheless, the Court explained that its holding “d[id] not necessarily mean that the [plaintiffs] [we]re without any remedy, as they may be able to pursue civil liability against [the defendant] under other applicable tort or contract laws of this State.”
Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Morrisroe, 746 S.E.2d 859 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “*250 In Anthony, the Supreme Court of Georgia considered whether a civil cause of action arose under OCGA§ 45-17-11, which sets fees for notaries.”
Allmond v. Young, 723 S.E.2d 691 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “448, 461 ( 697 SE2d 166 ) (2010) (plaintiffs were not prevented from subsequently discovering the impropriety of these actions by simple reference to OCGA § 45-17-11 of the readily-available Georgia Code).”
Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 583 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2009).
“TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA AND ITS HONORABLE JUSTICES: In this case, we must decide whether a debtor may recover notarial fees charged by a creditor in excess of the statutory maximum established by OCGA § 45-17-11(b) (2002). This case presents questions of Georgia law that…”
Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 626 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “A Notary Fee Statute Claim The Anthonys argue that the district court erred in concluding that the notary fee statute, OCGA § 45-17-11, provides no private civil cause of action.”
Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 626 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA AND ITS HONORABLE JUSTICES: In this case, we must decide whether a debtor may recover notarial fees charged by a creditor in excess of the statutory maximum established by OCGA § 45-17-11(b) (2002). This case presents questions of Georgia law that…”
Roderick A. Wright v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. (11th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 2× “It found that “[i]n Georgia, there is no private cause of action for a claim arising under the notary public statutes,” and that “employers are neither subject directly to nor held vicariously liable for violations of OCGA § 45-17-11 committed by a notary public employed by them.”
Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 626 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 3× “Notary Fee Statute Claim The Anthonys argue that the district court erred in concluding that the notary fee statute, OCGA § 45-17-11, provides no private civil cause of action.”
— 45-17-11(b) — 3 cases
Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 697 S.E.2d 166 (Ga. 2010).
“In 2007, the Anthonys filed suit against American General in the federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia, asserting a cause of action under OCGA § 45-17-11, along with claims for breach of contract, fraud, and money had and received.”
Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 583 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2009).
“TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA AND ITS HONORABLE JUSTICES: In this case, we must decide whether a debtor may recover notarial fees charged by a creditor in excess of the statutory maximum established by OCGA § 45-17-11(b) (2002). This case presents questions of Georgia law that…”
Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 626 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2009).
“TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA AND ITS HONORABLE JUSTICES: In this case, we must decide whether a debtor may recover notarial fees charged by a creditor in excess of the statutory maximum established by OCGA § 45-17-11(b) (2002). This case presents questions of Georgia law that…”
— 45-17-11(d) — 3 cases
Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 697 S.E.2d 166 (Ga. 2010).
“In 2007, the Anthonys filed suit against American General in the federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia, asserting a cause of action under OCGA § 45-17-11, along with claims for breach of contract, fraud, and money had and received.”
Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 626 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2009).
“TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA AND ITS HONORABLE JUSTICES: In this case, we must decide whether a debtor may recover notarial fees charged by a creditor in excess of the statutory maximum established by OCGA § 45-17-11(b) (2002). This case presents questions of Georgia law that…”
Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 626 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2010).
“Notary Fee Statute Claim The Anthonys argue that the district court erred in concluding that the notary fee statute, OCGA § 45-17-11, provides no private civil cause of action.”
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.