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 and9-3-31, as the mortgagors could have discovered the impropriety 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).

ALR.

- Validity and effect of agreement to give bank all, or part, of fees of notary for protesting paper, 25 A.L.R. 170.