Getting blog post revealing methods of formula out of finance costs when you look at the Georgia credit agreements, find 31 Mercer L

– Getting post discussing federal details-in-credit specifications in addition to their relation to county rules, discover 6 Ga. St. B. J. 19 (1969). Rev. 281 (1978). Having post, “The newest Federalization and you will Privatization off Public User Safeguards Legislation in the Us: The Impact on Lawsuits and Enforcement,” come across 24 Ga. St. You.L. Rev. 663 (2008). L. Rev. 454 (1975).

• General Planning
• Government Preemption

Ford Engine Borrowing Co

– The latest purchases out of a cellular domestic happens in the terms regarding Ga. L. 1967, p. 674, § step one. Proprietor v. Brock, 129 Ga. Software. 732, two hundred S.Age.2d 912 (1973), overruled into most other factor, Tucker v. Chung Studio off Karate, Inc., 142 Ga. App. easy Chelmsford installment loans 818, 237 S.E.2d 223 (1977); Smith v. Neighborhood Nat’l Financial, 141 Ga. Software. 19, 232 S.Age.2d 367 (1977); Porter v. Midland-Guardian Co., 145 Ga. Software. 262, 243 S.E.2d 595, rev’d towards the almost every other grounds, 242 Ga. 1, 247 S.E.2d 743 (1978).

To have mention revealing transfer charges home based mortgage assumptions when you look at the source with the Georgia usury rules, select 9 Ga

– The latest simple presence off a speed clause is not violative out of Ga. L. 1967, p. 674, § 1. Eco-friendly v. Citizens & S. Financial, 153 Ga. Software. 342, 265 S.Age.2d 286 (1980).

– A beneficial “documentary preparation” commission explicitly recognized as such as for instance within the an automible loans offer and you can added to the brand new unpaid harmony of purchase price because the a keen “almost every other costs” wasn’t a fund fees whilst was recharged to all the user purchasers (each other cash and borrowing from the bank). Hence, this new contract complied with federal and state law. Ferris v. Chrysler Borrowing Corp., 764 F.2d 1475 (11th Cir.), rehearing declined, 770 F.2d 1084 (11th Cir. 1985).

– Georgia laws, rather than Sc legislation, influenced a cellular house shopping fees conversion package registered towards by Sc buyers that have good Georgia agent because the contract consisted of the option of law provision showing your price should be construed according to the guidelines of county in which the newest seller’s place of business are receive. Moyer v. Citicorp Residents, Inc., 799 F.2d 1445 (11th Cir. 1986).

Quoted inside the Engine Deal Co. v. Sawyer, 123 Ga. App. 207, 180 S.E.2d 282 (1971); Geiger Fin. Co. v. Graham, 123 Ga. App. 771, 182 S.E.2d 521 (1971); Smith v. Singleton, 124 Ga. Application. 394, 184 S.Elizabeth.2d twenty-six (1971); Whittlesey v. , 542 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1976); Jordan v. , 141 Ga. Application. 280, 233 S.Age.2d 256 (1977); Smith v. Standard Fin. Corp., 143 Ga. Software. 390, 238 S.E.2d 694 (1977); Mullins v. Oden & Sims Utilized Cars, Inc., 148 Ga. Application. 250, 251 S.Age.2d 65 (1978); Coppage v. Mellon Bank, 150 Ga. Software. ninety-five, 256 S.E.2d 671 (1979); Parker v. George Thompson Ford, Inc., 83 F.Roentgen.D. 378 (N.D. Ga. 1979); Grover v. Antique Credit Corp., 155 Ga. Software. 759, 272 S.E.2d 732 (1980); In lso are McLeod, 5 Bankr. 520 (N.D. Ga. 1980); From inside the lso are Weaver, 5 Bankr. 522 (Letter.D. Ga. 1980).

– A cellular home financing bargain and that did not affirmatively misrepresent the new debtor’s federal statutory promises fulfilled the requirements having obtaining the cover away from federal preemption from condition law interest ceilings. Grant v. GECC, 764 F.2d 1404 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. refuted, 476 You.S. 1124, 106 S. Ct. 1993, ninety L. Ed. 2d 673 (1986).

– Federal laws preempted the usage O.C.Grams.Good. Ways. 2, Ch. 1, T. 10 so you’re able to contracts that have been manufactured in compliance with laws promulgated of the Federal Mortgage Lender Panel. Moyer v. Citicorp Homeowners, Inc., 799 F.2d 1445 (11th Cir. 1986).

– Mobile residential property are part of the term cars contains in Ga. L. 1967, p. 674, § 2 and you may and thus subject to Ga. L. 1967, p. 659, § step one. 1967 Op. Att’y Gen. Zero. 67-410.