O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 7-3-17 (2019)

Closing fees; refund or credit; pro rata basis

✓ 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

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) of Code Section 13-1-14, when any installment loan upon which a closing fee has been charged by a licensee is prepaid by any means within 90 days of the date of the loan, the borrower shall be entitled to a refund or credit of the closing fee, calculated as follows: the installment lender shall determine, on a daily pro rata basis over the original term of the loan, the amount of the closing fee that has accumulated prior to the prepayment. The installment lender shall refund or credit the borrower with the pro rata amount that has not accumulated prior to the prepayment; provided, however, that the installment lender may retain from the collected closing fee the greater of the accumulated pro rata closing fee or $25.00.

History

Code 1981, § 7-3-17, enacted by Ga. L. 2024, p. 354, § 1-37/HB 876, effective July 1, 2024. Effective date. This Code section became effective July 1, 2024.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. This Code section formerly pertained to tax on interest, payment, inspection of

records, and rules and regulations. The former Code section was based on Ga. L. 1955, Ex. Sess., p. 57, § 2; Ga. L. 1956, p. 86, § 2; Ga. L. 1975, p. 1247, § 2; Ga. L. 1989, p. 14, § 7; Ga. L. 2004, p. 631, § 7; Code 1981, § 7-3-20; Code 1981, § 7-3-17, as redesignated by Ga. L. 2020, p. 156, § 2/SB 462; and was repealed by Ga. L. 2022, p. 220, § 41/HB 891, effective July 1, 2022.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1984–1986 · leading case: Varner v. Century Fin. Corp., 315 S.E.2d 178 (Ga. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Varner v. Century Fin. Corp., 315 S.E.2d 178 (Ga. 1984). · cites it 10× “Varner v. Century Finance, No. 80-494 A (N.D.Ga.”

Calvin Steele v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 783 F.2d 1016 (11th Cir. 1986). “Although Ford concedes that the original loan was not actually outstanding through July 26, it contends that under O.C.G.A. § 7-3-17 it properly calculated the amount of the interest rebate by rounding the loan period up to four full months.”

Williams v. Charter Credit Co., 347 S.E.2d 635 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “, OCGA §§ 7-3-17; Rules and Regulations 120-1-11-.”

Harlow v. Walton Loan Corp., 329 S.E.2d 616 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “) Since the Rule of 78’s is permitted in refinancing and it provides for a refund of unearned interest, there is no viable basis to hold that the difference between using the pro rata method versus the Rule of 78’s comprises a category of unearned interest which must…”

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.