Licensee.

- Trial court properly dismissed a declaratory judgment action brought by a bank and a cash advance lender, which was operating as an agent for the bank, to stop the Georgia Industrial Loan Commissioner from conducting an investigation of their lending activities because the Commissioner was authorized to conduct an investigation of the two entities' loan activities, in spite of the lender's claim that the bank and the lender were operating under the authority of federal banking law. BankWest, Inc. v. Oxendine, 266 Ga. App. 771, 598 S.E.2d 343 (2004).

"Loan".

- Tax preparer's payment to a taxpayer of a discounted sum in exchange for the right to a refund was not a "loan" but instead constituted a "sale" by the taxpayer of a chose in action. Cullen v. Bragg, 180 Ga. App. 866, 350 S.E.2d 798 (1986).

Sale/leaseback transactions engaged in by consumer cash advance businesses violated the anti-payday lending statute, O.C.G.A. § 16-17-1 et seq., and the Georgia Industrial Loan Act, O.C.G.A. § 7-3-1 et seq., since the state proved that the purported lease back of personal property to the consumer was not based on the actual appraised market value of the personal property but directly corresponded to the loan amount; the state proved that the businesses were requiring customers to be released from the loan agreement by paying the principal amount advanced to them plus a 25 to 27 percent fee, which amounted to an annual percentage rate of 650 to 702 percent. Clay v. Oxendine, 285 Ga. App. 50, 645 S.E.2d 553 (2007), cert. denied, No. S07C1247, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 556 (Ga. 2007).

Funding agreements were investment contracts, not loans.

- After the defendants entered into separate funding agreements with the plaintiffs, the defendant's motion to dismiss a putative class action for damages premised on violations of the Georgia Industrial Loan Act (GILA), O.C.G.A. § 7-3-1 et seq., was properly granted, but the defendant's motion with regard to the Payday Lending Act (PLA), O.C.G.A. § 16-17-1 et seq., was improperly denied as the funding agreements were not loans, but rather were investments in the plaintiffs' litigation, because the repayment requirement was completely contingent upon the recovery of proceeds from the plaintiffs' related legal claims; thus, instead of being loans that were regulated by the GILA and the PLA, the funding agreements were investment contracts to which the GILA and the PLA did not apply. Cherokee Funding LLC v. Ruth, 342 Ga. App. 404, 802 S.E.2d 865 (2017).

Cited in Robinson v. Colonial Disct. Co., 106 Ga. App. 274, 126 S.E.2d 824 (1962).