– For article discussing federal knowledge-in-lending specifications in addition to their reference to condition regulations, pick six Ga. St. B. J. 19 (1969). Rev. 281 (1978). To have article, “The new Federalization and you will Privatization of Personal Consumer Safety Legislation from the Us: The Effect on Lawsuits and Administration,” look for 24 Ga. St. You.L. Rev. 663 (2008). L. Rev. 454 (1975).
- Standard Said
- Government Preemption
Ford System Borrowing Co
– The latest income out-of a cellular domestic appear from inside the provisions out of Ga. L. installment loans Gurnee IL 1967, p. 674, § 1. Manager v. Brock, 129 Ga. App. 732, 2 hundred S.Elizabeth.2d 912 (1973), overruled toward most other grounds, Tucker v. Chung Facility regarding Karate, Inc., 142 Ga. App. 818, 237 S.Elizabeth.2d 223 (1977); Smith v. Area Nat’l Lender, 141 Ga. Software. 19, 232 S.Age.2d 367 (1977); Porter v. Midland-Protector Co., 145 Ga. Application. 262, 243 S.Age.2d 595, rev’d towards the almost every other foundation, 242 Ga. step one, 247 S.Elizabeth.2d 743 (1978).
Having mention revealing transfer charge home based mortgage assumptions when you look at the site into the Georgia usury regulations, look for nine Ga
– The fresh new simple presence from a velocity condition is not violative out-of Ga. L. 1967, p. 674, § step 1. Green v. Residents & S. Financial, 153 Ga. App. 342, 265 S.E.2d 286 (1980).
– A beneficial “documentary planning” fee explicitly identified as instance within the an auto loans deal and you may put into the newest outstanding equilibrium of cost since the an “other fees” wasn’t a financing charges since it are energized to individual people (both bucks and you may borrowing). Thus, new bargain complied having federal and state law. Ferris v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 764 F.2d 1475 (11th Cir.), rehearing refuted, 770 F.2d 1084 (11th Cir. 1985).
– Georgia laws, unlike Sc rules, ruled a mobile home retail cost conversion process contract inserted for the of the Sc people having good Georgia specialist because price consisted of the option of rules supply proving that the price can be construed according to the laws of county where the new seller’s bar or nightclub is located. Moyer v. Citicorp Residents, Inc., 799 F.2d 1445 (11th Cir. 1986).
Cited inside the System Offer Co. v. Sawyer, 123 Ga. App. 207, 180 S.E.2d 282 (1971); Geiger Fin. Co. v. Graham, 123 Ga. Software. 771, 182 S.E.2d 521 (1971); Smith v. Singleton, 124 Ga. Application. 394, 184 S.Age.2d 26 (1971); Whittlesey v. , 542 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1976); Jordan v. , 141 Ga. App. 280, 233 S.Age.2d 256 (1977); Smith v. General Fin. Corp., 143 Ga. Software. 390, 238 S.E.2d 694 (1977); Mullins v. Oden & Sims Put Cars, Inc., 148 Ga. Application. 250, 251 S.Age.2d 65 (1978); Coppage v. Mellon Financial, 150 Ga. Application. ninety five, 256 S.Elizabeth.2d 671 (1979); Parker v. George Thompson Ford, Inc., 83 F.Roentgen.D. 378 (Letter.D. Ga. 1979); Grover v. Antique Borrowing from the bank Corp., 155 Ga. Software. 759, 272 S.Age.2d 732 (1980); When you look at the lso are McLeod, 5 Bankr. 520 (Letter.D. Ga. 1980); Inside the lso are Weaver, 5 Bankr. 522 (Letter.D. Ga. 1980).
– A mobile a home loan price hence failed to affirmatively misrepresent new debtor’s federal legal claims satisfied the requirements to have obtaining the safeguards from government preemption away from state legislation attention ceilings. Grant v. GECC, 764 F.2d 1404 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. refused, 476 U.S. 1124, 106 S. Ct. 1993, 90 L. Ed. 2d 673 (1986).
– Federal rules preempted the use of O.C.Grams.A great. Ways. dos, Ch. 1, T. ten so you’re able to contracts that have been produced in conformity that have laws promulgated from the Federal Mortgage Lender Panel. Moyer v. Citicorp Residents, Inc., 799 F.2d 1445 (11th Cir. 1986).
– Cellular belongings are included in the term motor vehicles contained from inside the Ga. L. 1967, p. 674, § 2 and and therefore subject to Ga. L. 1967, p. 659, § step one. 1967 Op. Att’y Gen. Zero. 67-410.