To have article sharing types of computation off finance charge from inside the Georgia consumer credit contracts, get a hold of 29 Mercer L

– Having blog post discussing government truth-in-credit terms in addition to their reference to state laws and regulations, select 6 Ga. St. B. J. 19 (1969). Rev. 281 (1978). To have post, “The brand new Federalization and Privatization of Public Consumer Coverage Rules in the United states: Its Influence on Lawsuits and you may Enforcement,” look for twenty four Ga. St. You.L. Rev. 663 (2008). L. Rev. 454 (1975).

• Standard Idea
• Federal Preemption

Ford Engine Credit Co

– This new product sales from a mobile household happens inside specifications out-of Ga. L. 1967, p. 674, § step 1. Proprietor v. Brock, 129 Ga. Software. 732, 200 S.Age.2d 912 (1973), overruled towards most other foundation, Tucker v. Chung Business out of Karate, Inc., 142 Ga. Application. 818, 237 S.E.2d 223 (1977); Smith v. Area Nat’l Financial, 141 Ga. Software. 19, 232 S.Age.2d 367 (1977); Porter v. Midland-Guardian Co., 145 Ga. Application. 262, 243 S.E.2d 595, rev’d to your most other basis, 242 Ga. 1, 247 S.E.2d 743 (1978).

To own note sharing import charge home based financing presumptions for the resource to your Georgia usury regulations, look for 9 Ga

– Brand new simple presence of a velocity clause is not violative away from Ga. L. 1967, p. 674, § step 1. Environmentally friendly v. People & S. Financial, 153 Ga. Software. 342, 265 S.E.2d 286 (1980).

– A great “documentary preparation” percentage explicitly defined as such as for instance within the a car or truck fund price and you will set in the brand new delinquent balance of one’s price while the an “most other charges” was not a funds charges since it try charged to any or all user purchasers (each other bucks and borrowing from the bank). For this reason, the brand new offer complied which have state and federal law. Ferris v. Chrysler Borrowing Corp., 764 F.2d 1475 (11th Cir.), rehearing denied, 770 F.2d 1084 (11th Cir. 1985).

– Georgia legislation, in lieu of South carolina rules, governed a mobile home shopping repayment conversion contract registered to your from the Sc consumers with a good Georgia dealer just like the price contains a choice of law provision appearing your package should be construed in accordance with the legislation of your own county in which the newest seller’s place of business are discovered. Moyer v. Citicorp People, Inc., 799 F.2d 1445 (11th Cir. 1986).

Cited in Engine Contract Co. v. Sawyer, 123 Ga. Software. 207, 180 S.Elizabeth.2d 282 (1971); Geiger Fin. Co. v. Graham, 123 Ga. App. 771, 182 S.Elizabeth.2d 521 (1971); Smith v. Singleton, 124 Ga. App. 394, 184 S.Elizabeth.2d 26 (1971); Whittlesey v. , 542 F.2d fast online installment loans Cicero 245 (fifth Cir. 1976); Jordan v. , 141 Ga. Application. 280, 233 S.Elizabeth.2d 256 (1977); Smith v. General Fin. Corp., 143 Ga. Software. 390, 238 S.E.2d 694 (1977); Mullins v. Oden & Sims Put Automobiles, Inc., 148 Ga. Software. 250, 251 S.Elizabeth.2d 65 (1978); Coppage v. Mellon Bank, 150 Ga. Software. 92, 256 S.Age.2d 671 (1979); Parker v. George Thompson Ford, Inc., 83 F.R.D. 378 (Letter.D. Ga. 1979); Grover v. Antique Credit Corp., 155 Ga. Application. 759, 272 S.Elizabeth.2d 732 (1980); From inside the re McLeod, 5 Bankr. 520 (Letter.D. Ga. 1980); Inside the re Weaver, 5 Bankr. 522 (Letter.D. Ga. 1980).

– A cellular home financing deal and this failed to affirmatively misrepresent the new debtor’s government legal claims met certain requirements to have obtaining the protection regarding federal preemption regarding condition rules desire ceilings. Give v. GECC, 764 F.2d 1404 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. rejected, 476 U.S. 1124, 106 S. Ct. 1993, 90 L. Ed. 2d 673 (1986).

– Government laws preempted the aid of O.C.G.An effective. Art. dos, Ch. step 1, T. 10 to contracts that happen to be produced in compliance with statutes promulgated because of the Government Mortgage Bank Panel. Moyer v. Citicorp Property owners, Inc., 799 F.2d 1445 (11th Cir. 1986).

– Mobile homes are included in the phrase automobiles contained in Ga. L. 1967, p. 674, § dos and you can and so susceptible to Ga. L. 1967, p. 659, § 1. 1967 Op. Att’y Gen. Zero. 67-410.