O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-13-166 (2019)

Form of tender

✓ 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

Purchasers at judicial sales need not tender cash but, as an alternative, may tender a cashier’s or certified check which is drawn for the amount of the purchase price and which is issued by or certified by any financial institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation.

History

(Ga. L. 1976, p. 367, § 1.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Refusal to confirm sale was error. - Trial court’s refusal to confirm a judicial sale was reversed as a cashier’s check tendered by a buyer was the statutory and functional equivalent of a cash payment; because of the plain language and purpose of O.C.G.A. § 9-13-166, the unsuccessful bidders should not have been confused; further, the unsuccessful bidders did not

have any more cash available and could not have obtained a cashier’s check for any more than the amount they bid; any confusion as to the appropriate method of payment made no difference in the outcome. Upchurch v. Chaney, 280 Ga. 891, 635 S.E.2d 124 (2006). Cited in Buffington v. Sigler, 259 Ga. 478, 383 S.E.2d 876 (1989).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Judicial Sales, § 131 et seq. C.J.S. - 50A C.J.S., Judicial Sales, § 59 et seq.

ALR. - Conditional bid at judicial or execution sale, 104 ALR 632. Propriety of accepting check or promissory note in satisfaction of bid at execu-

tion or judicial sale had for cash, 86 ALR2d 292.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1989–2006 · leading case: Upchurch v. Chaney, 635 S.E.2d 124 (Ga. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Upchurch v. Chaney, 635 S.E.2d 124 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 6× “6 OCGA § 9-13-166 plainly states that the winning bid in a *892 “for cash” judicial sale can be tendered by cash, certified check, or cashier’s check.”

Buffington v. Sigler, 383 S.E.2d 876 (Ga. 1989). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 9-13-166. In this case, however, Buffington agreed to depart from the strict statutory requirements by agreeing to accept as tender Sigler’s personal check, subject to the condition that it would be honored on presentation.”

Interurban Inv. Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 905 F. Supp. 1349 (E.D. La. 1995). “2d 876 (1989), is factually inapposite because the sale there involved a sale pursuant to OCGA § 9-13-166, which provides that the form of tender at a judicial sale can be cash, cashier’s check or certified check drawn on a federally insured institution.”

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.