O.C.G.A. § 9-13-71 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS This section does not apply to levy upon real estate. Deloach & Wilcoxson v. Myrick, 6 Ga. 410 (1849); Dowdell v. Neal, 10 Ga. 148 (1851); Overby v. Hart, 68 Ga. 493 (1882). First rule stated in this section relates to rights of immediate parties to levy, which cast the burden of proof on the plaintiff in fi. fa. to account for the levy. Newsom v. McLendon, 6 Ga. 392 (1849); Lynch v. Pressley, 8 Ga. 327 (1850). When execution satisfied. - Legal presumption is that execution has been satisfied when levy is not accounted for or the dismissal of the levy is not explained; but like any other legal presumption, the presumption may be rebutted by the facts of the case. Strobel v. Gormley, 50 Ga. App. 358, 178 S.E. 192 (1935). When levy has been made and dismissed, it must be shown that execution was not satisfied thereby; for if it is unexplained, it will be considered as an abandonment of the lien so far as third persons are concerned. Strobel v. Gormley, 50 Ga. App. 358, 178 S.E. 192 (1935). No presumption of satisfaction arises when property is sold for sum insufficient to satisfy the execution. V.M.C. Prods., Inc. v. Henry, 88 Ga. App. 261, 76 S.E.2d 451 (1953). Dismissal when levy unproductive

sufficient to account for dismissal. - Levy of personal property which has been dismissed by the plaintiff or the plaintiff ’s attorney, without being productive, and when no injury has resulted from such dismissal, sufficiently accounts for, and explains such levy to authorize the plaintiff to proceed with the levy’s collection, and to enable it to participate in the distribution of a fund in court raised from the sale of the defendant’s property according to its priority. Strobel v. Gormley, 50 Ga. App. 358, 178 S.E. 192 (1935). Dismissal of levy on senior fieri facias is not satisfaction of judgment; it does not displace the lien of such execution of judgment to that of junior liens; the fact that the levy is dismissed and the property left in the possession of the defendant sufficiently accounts for and explains such levy so as to enable the plaintiff to enforce the plaintiff ’s lien by levy, in claiming money in court, according to the levy’s priority, as effectually as though no such levy had been made, because if the property is left in the possession of the debtor the debtor is not injured and loses nothing, and the debtor cannot complain. Strobel v. Gormley, 50 Ga. App. 358, 178 S.E. 192 (1935). Cited in Strobel v. Gormley, 50 Ga. App. 358, 178 S.E. 192 (1935); V.M.C. Prods., Inc. v. Henry, 88 Ga. App. 261, 76 S.E.2d 451 (1953).

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. - 33 C.J.S., Executions, § 524.

Am. Jur. 2d. - 30 Am. Jur. 2d, Executions and Enforcement of Judgments, § 255.