In addition to any applicable disclosure requirements, at the time the installment loan is made, each licensee under this chapter shall deliver to the borrower or, if there are multiple borrowers, to one of the borrowers a copy of the loan contract or a written itemized statement in the English language showing in clear terms the date and amount of the loan, a schedule of the payments or a description thereof, the type of security for the loan, the licensee's name, unique identifier, business address, the actual amount of cash advanced to or on behalf of the borrower, the amount of each class of insurance carried and the premiums paid thereon, and the amount of interest and fees. Each licensee shall give a receipt for every cash payment made.
(Ga. L. 1904, p. 79, §§ 6, 7; Civil Code 1910, § 3454; Ga. L. 1920, p. 215, § 14; Code 1933, §§ 25-209, 25-314; Ga. L. 1955, p. 431, § 19; Code 1981, §7-3-18; Code 1981, §7-3-15, as redesignated by Ga. L. 2020, p. 156, § 2/SB 462.)
The 2020 amendment, effective June 30, 2020, redesignated former Code Section 7-3-18 as present Code Section 7-3-15, and, in the first sentence, substituted "In addition to any applicable disclosure requirements, at the time the installment" for "At the time the", "multiple borrowers" for "two or more", "the borrowers" for "them", and substituted ", unique identifier, business address, the actual amount of cash" for "and address, the actual cash". See Editor's notes at the beginning of this chapter for applicability.
Editor's notes.- Ga. L. 2020, p. 156, § 2/SB 462, effective June 30, 2020, redesignated former Code Section 7-3-15 as present Code Section 7-3-12.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Editor's notes.
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under former Acts 1920, p. 222 are included in the annotations for this Code section.
Act is applicable to loan contracts, not merely notes.
- Statutory language of the Georgia Industrial Loan Act, (see now Georgia Installment Loan Act, O.C.G.A. § 7-3-1 et seq.) refers to loan contracts and not merely notes. General Fin. Corp. v. Sprouse, 577 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1978).
Substantial compliance with section may suffice.
- Although renewal note was not made out with as much particularity as was required by Acts 1920, p. 222, it may nevertheless affirmatively appear that there was substantial compliance with that Act and that the borrowers had been furnished relevant information. Dean v. Avco Fin. Servs., Inc., 128 Ga. App. 256, 196 S.E.2d 415 (1973) (decided under former Acts 1920, p. 222).
Burden was on lender to show full compliance with terms of former Acts 1920, p. 222, otherwise the transaction was void. Dean v. Avco Fin. Servs., Inc., 128 Ga. App. 256, 196 S.E.2d 415 (1973) (decided under Acts 1920, p. 222).
Burden is upon lender to bring in any other writings.
- If there were other writings between the parties, it is incumbent upon the lender to come up with those writings or suffer judgment. HFC v. Rogers, 137 Ga. App. 315, 223 S.E.2d 462 (1976).
Inconsistency between state disclosure requirements and Truth-in- Lending Act.- State law is inconsistent with requirements of Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., to extent that it requires a creditor to make disclosures different from the federal requirements with respect to form or terminology. Gresham v. Termplan, Inc., 480 F. Supp. 149 (N.D. Ga. 1979), aff'd, 648 F.2d 312 (5th Cir. 1981).
State law is inconsistent with requirements of truth in lending law if the state law requires a creditor to make disclosures different from those required by federal law as to form, content, terminology, or time of delivery. Blalock v. Aetna Fin. Co., 511 F. Supp. 33 (N.D. Ga. 1980).
Mingling of state disclosures and federal regulations.- Mingling of inconsistent state disclosures with terminology required by federal regulations is not permissible. Gresham v. Termplan, Inc., 480 F. Supp. 149 (N.D. Ga. 1979), aff'd, 648 F.2d 312 (5th Cir. 1981).
Permissible method for making disclosures under inconsistent state and federal requirements. See Gresham v. Termplan, Inc., 480 F. Supp. 149 (N.D. Ga. 1979), aff'd, 648 F.2d 312 (5th Cir. 1981).
Clerical error in loan document as to insurance.
- Clerical error on loan document as to nature of insurance did not violate the Industrial Loan Act (now Georgia Installment Loan Act), O.C.G.A. § 7-3-1 et seq., when the loan document expressly provided that the agreement consisted of both the loan document and the disclosure statement. Jenkins v. Commercial Credit Plan, Inc., 204 Ga. App. 444, 419 S.E.2d 484, cert. denied, 204 Ga. App. 922, 419 S.E.2d 484 (1992).
Cited in Colter v. Consolidated Credit Corp., 115 Ga. App. 408, 154 S.E.2d 713 (1967); Colter v. Consolidated Credit Corp., 116 Ga. App. 520, 157 S.E.2d 812 (1967); Patman v. General Fin. Corp., 128 Ga. App. 836, 198 S.E.2d 371 (1973); Cullers v. Home Credit Co., 130 Ga. App. 441, 203 S.E.2d 544 (1973); Dukes v. HFC, 137 Ga. App. 474, 224 S.E.2d 107 (1976); Hawkins v. HFC, 139 Ga. App. 525, 229 S.E.2d 13 (1976); Freeman v. Decatur Loan & Fin. Corp., 140 Ga. App. 682, 231 S.E.2d 409 (1976); Carter v. Credithrift of Am., Inc., 143 Ga. App. 256, 238 S.E.2d 257 (1977); Southern Discount. Co. v. Heide, 144 Ga. App. 481, 241 S.E.2d 599 (1978); Marshall v. Fulton Nat'l Bank, 145 Ga. App. 190, 243 S.E.2d 266 (1978); Shaver v. Aetna Fin. Co., 148 Ga. App. 740, 252 S.E.2d 684 (1979); Ector v. Southern Disct. Co., 499 F. Supp. 284 (N.D. Ga. 1980); Scroggins v. Whitfield Fin. Co., 157 Ga. App. 655, 278 S.E.2d 411 (1981); Gresham v. Termplan, Inc., 648 F.2d 312 (5th Cir. 1981).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 53A Am. Jur. 2d, Moneylenders and Pawnbrokers, §§ 26 et seq., 33.
C.J.S.- 47 C.J.S., Interest and Usury; Consumer Credit, §§ 436 et seq., 451.
ALR.- Validity, construction, and application of Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and regulations promulgated thereunder - United States Supreme Court cases, 67 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 567.