– Getting blog post sharing government specifics-in-lending specifications and their relation to county legislation, get a hold of 6 Ga. St. B. J. 19 (1969). Rev. 281 (1978). For blog post, “The brand new Federalization and you may Privatization away from Personal User Protection Law from the You: The Affect Lawsuits and you will Administration,” discover twenty four Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 663 online Windsor installment loan (2008). L. Rev. 454 (1975).
- Standard Idea
- Federal Preemption
Ford Motor Borrowing Co
– The latest product sales from a cellular household will come in conditions out-of Ga. L. 1967, p. 674, § step one. Holder v. Brock, 129 Ga. Software. 732, 2 hundred S.Elizabeth.2d 912 (1973), overruled to the almost every other foundation, Tucker v. Chung Studio out-of Karate, Inc., 142 Ga. Application. 818, 237 S.E.2d 223 (1977); Smith v. People Nat’l Lender, 141 Ga. Software. 19, 232 S.Elizabeth.2d 367 (1977); Porter v. Midland-Guardian Co., 145 Ga. Software. 262, 243 S.Age.2d 595, rev’d to your most other factor, 242 Ga. 1, 247 S.Elizabeth.2d 743 (1978).
To have note sharing transfer costs home based financing presumptions during the site into the Georgia usury legislation, see nine Ga
– This new mere visibility out of an acceleration term is not violative out-of Ga. L. 1967, p. 674, § step 1. Eco-friendly v. Citizens & S. Lender, 153 Ga. Software. 342, 265 S.E.2d 286 (1980).
– An effective “documentary planning” payment clearly defined as like into the an auto loans deal and you can added to the new outstanding balance of the purchase price due to the fact an “other costs” was not a finance fees whilst is actually billed to all individual buyers (one another cash and you can credit). Ergo, the fresh new contract complied having federal and state laws. Ferris v. Chrysler Borrowing Corp., 764 F.2d 1475 (11th Cir.), rehearing denied, 770 F.2d 1084 (11th Cir. 1985).
– Georgia law, rather than Sc rules, ruled a cellular household shopping installment conversion process package joined to the by the South carolina buyers having good Georgia specialist as price contains a choice of legislation provision demonstrating that the bargain can be construed in accordance with the laws and regulations of your state where the fresh seller’s bar or nightclub is found. Moyer v. Citicorp Property owners, Inc., 799 F.2d 1445 (11th Cir. 1986).
Cited when you look at the System Contract Co. v. Sawyer, 123 Ga. Software. 207, 180 S.E.2d 282 (1971); Geiger Fin. Co. v. Graham, 123 Ga. Software. 771, 182 S.Elizabeth.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. Software. 280, 233 S.Elizabeth.2d 256 (1977); Smith v. General Fin. Corp., 143 Ga. Application. 390, 238 S.Elizabeth.2d 694 (1977); Mullins v. Oden & Sims Made use of Automobiles, Inc., 148 Ga. Software. 250, 251 S.Age.2d 65 (1978); Coppage v. Mellon Financial, 150 Ga. App. ninety-five, 256 S.Elizabeth.2d 671 (1979); Parker v. George Thompson Ford, Inc., 83 F.R.D. 378 (Letter.D. Ga. 1979); Grover v. Antique Borrowing from the bank Corp., 155 Ga. App. 759, 272 S.Elizabeth.2d 732 (1980); In lso are McLeod, 5 Bankr. 520 (N.D. Ga. 1980); Into the lso are Weaver, 5 Bankr. 522 (Letter.D. Ga. 1980).
– A cellular a mortgage bargain hence did not affirmatively misrepresent brand new debtor’s federal statutory guarantees met the prerequisites to own acquiring the shelter of government preemption regarding condition law attract ceilings. Offer v. GECC, 764 F.2d 1404 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. rejected, 476 You.S. 1124, 106 S. Ct. 1993, ninety L. Ed. 2d 673 (1986).
– Government laws preempted using O.C.G.An excellent. Ways. 2, Ch. 1, T. 10 so you’re able to deals which were made in conformity with statutes promulgated by Government Financial Bank Board. Moyer v. Citicorp Home owners, Inc., 799 F.2d 1445 (11th Cir. 1986).
– Cellular residential property are part of the term motor vehicles contained into the Ga. L. 1967, p. 674, § dos and and therefore subject to Ga. L. 1967, p. 659, § step one. 1967 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 67-410.
