Reserved. Repealed by Ga. L. 2019, p. 872, § 4(1)/HB 307, effective September 1, 2019.
Editor's notes.- This Code section was based on Ga. L. 1972, p. 342, § 2; Ga. L. 1977, p. 253, § 2; Ga. L. 1980, p. 995, § 2; Ga. L. 1981, p. 469, § 2; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 40; Ga. L. 1985, p. 1265, § 2; Ga. L. 1988, p. 1750, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 1657, § 6; Ga. L. 1992, p. 2978, § 10; Ga. L. 1993, p. 772, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 663, § 1; Ga. L. 1996, p. 6, § 40; Ga. L. 1998, p. 1305, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 951, § 7-1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 4; Ga. L. 2002, p. 563, § 2; Ga. L. 2005, p. 334, § 21-2/HB 501; Ga. L. 2008, p. 803, § 3/HB 945.
Code Commission notes.- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1992, "this chapter" was substituted for "Chapter 11 of this title" in subsection (d).
Law reviews.- For note on the 1990 amendment of this Code section, see 7 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 329 (1990). For note on the 2002 amendment of this Code section, see 19 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 266 (2002).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
No conversion when attempt to notify vehicle owner.
- Fact that garagemen were not in strict compliance with the notice requirements of O.C.G.A. § 40-11-2 did not mandate a conclusion that garagemen's actions amounted to a conversion when the garagemen made several attempts to notify the vehicle owner formally and spoke with the owner several times over the telephone, and the owner knew the vehicle would be sold if the owner did not claim the vehicle. Gearing v. Complete Wrecker Serv., Inc., 187 Ga. App. 242, 370 S.E.2d 9 (1988).
Automobile repair shop that failed to comply with the notice requirement of O.C.G.A. § 40-11-2 could not take advantage of the provision for payment of storage costs by a lienholder in an action by a bank for possession of a vehicle following default by the debtor. First Nat'l Bank v. Alvin Worley & Sons, 221 Ga. App. 820, 472 S.E.2d 568 (1996).
Failure to comply with the notice provisions.
- Because a vehicle-towing company failed to notify a car owner as required by O.C.G.A. § 40-11-2, it was liable to the owner for conversion as a matter of law when the company refuses to allow the owner to retrieve the car without the owner first paying storage and towing costs. A Tow, Inc. v. Williams, 245 Ga. App. 661, 538 S.E.2d 542 (2000).
Because an operator of a towing service provided no written notification to a lienholder as required by O.C.G.A. § 40-11-1 et seq., the operator forfeited any fees that the statute may have provided for towing and storing. Purser Truck Sales, Inc. v. Horton, 276 Ga. App. 17, 622 S.E.2d 405 (2005).
Trial court erred by conditioning a finance company's writ of possession upon the payment of a repair company's storage fees because the repair company failed to provide the notice required by the Abandoned Motor Vehicle Act, O.C.G.A. § 40-11-2(f); thus, it was prevented from recovery of any storage fees. Further, the trial court erred by finding that the vehicle had not been abandoned since neither the finance company nor the title owner of the vehicle had called for the vehicle within 30 days after the vehicle was left with the repair company. Transworld Fin. Corp. v. Coastal Tire & Container Repair, LLC, 298 Ga. App. 286, 680 S.E.2d 143 (2009).
Notice not required when owner known.
- Under the 1994 version of O.C.G.A. § 40-11-2(b), a wrecker service which pulled and stored a vehicle in the good faith belief that the owner was known was exempt from compliance with the notice requirements of that section. Walker v. Crane, 243 Ga. App. 838, 534 S.E.2d 520 (2000).
Cited in Shaw v. Wheat St. Baptist Church, 141 Ga. App. 883, 234 S.E.2d 711 (1977).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 32 et seq.