— For article sharing government insights-in-credit specifications and their relation to state guidelines, discover 6 Ga. St. B. J. 19 (1969). Rev. 281 (1978). To possess post, «This new Federalization and you may Privatization out-of Public Individual Shelter Legislation on the United states: Their Affect Litigation and you can Administration,» find twenty-four Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 663 (2008). L. Rev. 454 (1975).
- Standard Attention
- Federal Preemption
Ford System Credit Co
— New sale off a mobile home comes when you look at the provisions regarding Ga. L. 1967, p. 674, § step 1. Proprietor v. Brock, 129 Ga. Application. 732, 200 S.Elizabeth.2d 912 (1973), overruled towards the other factor, Tucker v. Chung Facility regarding Karate, Inc., 142 Ga. Application. 818, 237 S.Age.2d 223 (1977); Smith v. Area Nat’l Bank, 141 Ga. App. 19, 232 S.Elizabeth.2d 367 (1977); Porter v. Midland-Guardian Co., 145 Ga. App. 262, 243 S.E.2d 595, rev’d into the other foundation, 242 Ga. step 1, 247 S.Elizabeth.2d 743 (1978).
To have mention revealing import charges home based mortgage assumptions inside site with the Georgia usury legislation, get a hold of 9 Ga
— This new mere exposure off a velocity term isn’t violative regarding Ga. L. 1967, p. 674, § step 1. Green v. Citizens & S. Financial, 153 Ga. App. 342, 265 S.E.2d 286 (1980).
— An effective «documentary preparing» fee clearly identified as such inside an auto fund offer and you will set in the fresh new delinquent equilibrium of price once the an «other costs» wasn’t a money charge because it try charged to any or all individual purchasers (both cash and you may credit). Therefore, this new offer complied with federal and state rules. Ferris v. Chrysler Borrowing Corp., 764 F.2d 1475 (11th Cir.), rehearing denied, 770 F.2d 1084 (11th Cir. 1985).
— Georgia laws, instead of South carolina laws, governed a mobile household merchandising installment transformation deal inserted with the by South carolina customers with good Georgia broker once the price contains a choice of rules provision proving that the contract shall be construed according to the guidelines of your condition where the newest seller’s place of business try receive. Moyer v. Citicorp People, Inc., 799 F.2d 1445 (11th Cir. 1986).
Quoted within the Engine Deal Co. v. Sawyer, 123 Ga. Application. 207, 180 S.Elizabeth.2d 282 (1971); Geiger Fin. Co. v. Graham, 123 Ga. Software. 771, 182 S.Age.2d 521 (1971); Smith v. Singleton, 124 Ga. Software. 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.E.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. App. 250, 251 S.E.2d 65 (1978); Coppage v. Mellon Bank, 150 Ga. Software. ninety-five, 256 S.Elizabeth.2d 671 (1979); Parker v. George Thompson Ford, Inc., 83 F.Roentgen.D. 378 (N.D. Ga. 1979); Grover v. Classic Credit Corp., 155 Ga. Software. 759, 272 S.Age.2d 732 (1980); In the re also McLeod, 5 Bankr. 520 (N.D. Ga. 1980); Into the re Weaver, 5 Bankr. 522 (N.D. Ga. 1980).
— A mobile a mortgage offer which did not affirmatively misrepresent the fresh new debtor’s government legal guarantees came across what’s needed having acquiring the safety out-of government preemption away from county laws desire ceilings. Give v. GECC, 764 F.2d 1404 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. declined, 476 You.S. 1124, 106 S. Ct. 1993, ninety L. Ed. 2d 673 (1986).
— Federal legislation preempted the employment of O.C.Grams.A good. Artwork. dos, Ch. step one, T. 10 so you’re able to contracts which were made in conformity having guidelines promulgated from the Federal Mortgage Bank Panel. Moyer v. Citicorp People, Inc., 799 F.2d 1445 (11th Cir. 1986).
— Mobile home are part of the term automobiles consisted of from inside the Ga. L. 1967, p. 674, § dos and and so susceptible to Ga. L. 1967, p. 659, § step one. 1967 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 67-410.