O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 48-3-20 (2019)

Interest on transferred executions

✓ 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

All tax executions, when recorded as prescribed by law and which have been transferred to third persons, shall bear interest at the rate specified in Code Section 48-2-40 from the date of transfer.

History

Ga. L. 1887, p. 21, § 1; Civil Code 1895, § 889; Civil Code 1910, § 1146; Code

1933, § 92-7603; Code 1933, § 91A-325, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 309, § 2; Ga. L. 1980, p. 10, § 8.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Former Civil Code 1910, § 1146 (see now O.C.G.A. § 48-3-20) must be construed with former Civil Code 1910, § 1144 (see now O.C.G.A. § 48-3-8). Palmer v. Phinizy, 151 Ga. 589, 107 S.E. 852, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 341 (1921). Failure to award interest. - When a trial court found a tax commissioner improperly refused to pay a tax execution holder’s executions, but did not find that the commissioner had good cause for the refusal and did not award the holder 20 percent interest, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-13-3(a), the matter had to be remanded for a determination of the good cause issue and to consider the holder’s entitlement to one percent interest per month, pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 48-3-20 and 48-2-40. Scott v. Vesta Holdings I,

LLC, 275 Ga. App. 196, 620 S.E.2d 447, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 930 (2005). Demand for payment of interest and fees proper. - When the plaintiff argued that the defendants improperly demanded interest and fees based on the higher assessment amount as the plaintiff entered into a consent agreement with the county tax commissioner to lower the value of the property prior to levy on the executions, the plaintiff’s substantive claims were prohibited as a matter of law because the tax executions were validly issued by the commissioner; the plaintiff failed to pay the taxes while pursuing the plaintiff’s appeal of the assessment and awaiting a refund; and the defendants were authorized to levy the executions and demand payment as

the plaintiff failed to plead that the executions were void as a matter of law or were cancelled by the commissioner in the consent judgment. B.C. Grand, LLC v.

FIG, LLC, 352 Ga. App. 646, 835 S.E.2d 676, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 622 (2019), cert. denied, No. S20C0503, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 425 (Ga. June 1, 2020).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2005–2019 · leading case: Scott v. Vesta Holdings I, LLC, 620 S.E.2d 447 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Scott v. Vesta Holdings I, LLC, 620 S.E.2d 447 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “A05A1227, Vesta Holdings contends the trial court erred by denying its petition for the 20 percent interest authorized by OCGA § 15-13-3 and the interest on its tax executions authorized by OCGA§§ 48-3-20 and 48-2-40. Because the trial court’s order does not find that good cause…”

E-Lane Pine Hills, LLC v. Ferdinand, 627 S.E.2d 44 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “On motion for reconsideration, Ferdinand also points out the legislature has not repealed OCGA § 48-3-20 (prescribing the interest to be paid on transferred tax executions).”

Investa Servs. of Ga, LLC v. B.C. Grand, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 48-3-20 (2012) states that “[a]ll tax executions, when recorded as prescribed by law and which have been transferred to third persons, shall bear interest at the rate specified in Code Section 48-2-40 from the date of transfer.”

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.