O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 7-1-821 (2019)

Right to setoff

✓ 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

Without qualifying any other statutory right to setoff or lien and subject to any contractual provision, if a party to a multiple-party account is indebted to a financial institution, the financial institution has a right to setoff against the account in which the party has or had immediately before his death a present right of withdrawal. The amount of the account subject to setoff is that proportion to which the debtor is or was immediately before his death beneficially entitled and, in the absence of proof of net contributions, an equal share with all parties having present rights of withdrawal.

History

Code 1933, § 41A-3812, enacted by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1388, § 8.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Right to setoff provided in O.C.G.A § 7-1-821 is also subject to any contractual provision. Simpson v. Georgia State Bank, 159 Ga. App. 310, 283 S.E.2d 278, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2588 (1981). Setoff held not unconscionable. - Unpublished decision: Under Georgia law, a contract allowing a bank a setoff of the bank’s indebtedness to depositors against the depositors’ indebtedness to the bank was not substantively unconscionable and the language in the agreement regarding arbitration was conspicuous so the provision was not procedurally

unconscionable; thus, the arbitration clause was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1. In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 459 Fed. Appx. 855, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4180 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 942, 133 S. Ct. 431, 184 L. Ed. 2d 259, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 7890 (2012). Right to set-off shown. - Even though the debtor was not beneficially entitled to any of the funds, the financial institution had a right of set off under the contractual provisions. Yates v. Trust Co. Bank, 212 Ga. App. 438, 442 S.E.2d 293, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 299 (1994).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 10 Am. Jur. 2d, Banks and Financial Institutions, §§ 853 et seq., 862 et seq. ALR. Bank’s right to set off unmatured claims as against receiver, assignee for benefit of

creditors, or trustee in bankruptcy, of insolvent depositor, 37 A.L.R.2d 850. Bank’s right of setoff, based on debit of one depositor, against funds in account standing in names of debtor and another, 68 A.L.R.3d 192.

ARTICLE 9 CRIMINAL AND RELATED PROVISIONS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1994–1994 · leading case: Yates v. Trust Co. Bank, 442 S.E.2d 293 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).
Yates v. Trust Co. Bank, 442 S.E.2d 293 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 7-1-821. The pleadings show that appellant supplied all of the funds which comprised the account, and Terry Yates had no beneficial entitlement.”
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.