As used in this part, the term:
(Ga. L. 1977, p. 1194, § 1; Ga. L. 1989, p. 819, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 3245, §§ 1, 2.)
Law reviews.- For annual survey of local government law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 289 (2005). For note on 1992 amendment of this Code section, see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 323 (1992).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Construction with §§ 44-12-131 and 44-12-137. - In resolving a statutory conflict between O.C.G.A. §§ 44-12-130(1) and44-12-137(a)(7) with respect to the one-month duration for a pawn transaction and O.C.G.A. § 44-12-131(a)(1) which required a duration of 30 days, it was determined that the criminal penalty in § 44-12-137(a)(7) was inapplicable to a customer's pawn transaction that satisfied the 30-day requirement of § 44-12-131(a)(1); the customer's action against the pawnbroker based on an illegal duration accordingly failed. Marshall v. Speedee Cash, 292 Ga. App. 790, 665 S.E.2d 888 (2008).
Pawnbroker's right to self-help.
- Although O.C.G.A. §§ 44-12-130(5) and44-12-131(a)(3) grant the pawnbroker the right to self-help repossession upon default without the necessity of filing a lien, this remedy is intended to apply to the defaulting pledgor, not a bona fide purchaser for value with no notice of the pawnbroker's claim. Cobb Ctr. Pawn & Jewelry Brokers, Inc. v. Gordon, 242 Ga. App. 73, 529 S.E.2d 138 (2000).
Debtor without interest in property not redeemed from pawnbroker.- The automatic stay did not apply to a pawnbroker as: (1) the debtor filed a 2016 case one day before the redemption period for a title pawn transaction expired, and the redemption period was extended to 60 days from the petition date; (2) the debtor failed to redeem the vehicle when the redemption period expired and on the redemption date, the vehicle belonged to the pawnbroker and the debtor's ownership interest in the vehicle was automatically extinguished; (3) the debtor had no interest in the vehicle when the 2018 bankruptcy case was filed that could become property of the bankruptcy estate; and (4) the 2018 Chapter 13 Plan's treatment of the vehicle as the debtor's property was immaterial as the redemption period had expired pre-petition and the vehicle belonged to the pawnbroker. TitleMax of Georgia, Inc. v. Thorpe (In re Thorpe), 612 Bankr. 463 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2019).
County ordinance not in conflict.
- Since the stated purpose of Gwinnett County, Ga., Ord. No. 82-11 was to impede the sale of stolen property, and its requirements were designed to achieve that end, it was a proper use of the county's police power, and was not in conflict with O.C.G.A. § 44-12-130 et seq. Pawnmart, Inc. v. Gwinnett County, 279 Ga. 19, 608 S.E.2d 639 (2005).
Cited in Bell v. Instant Car Title Loans (In re Bell), 279 Bankr. 890 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2002); In re Chastagner, 498 Bankr. 376 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2013).