Carter v. Swift Loan & Finance of Columbus, Inc., 56676
| Decision Date | 05 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 56676,56676 |
| Parties | CARTER v. SWIFT LOAN & FINANCE OF COLUMBUS, INC. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
J. Greg Wolinski, Paul E. Kauffmann, Staff Attys., Columbus, for appellant.
William Leon Slaughter, Columbus, for appellee.
This is a suit on a note. The debt sued upon is a loan made under the provisions of the Georgia Industrial Loan Act (Code Ch. 25-3; Ga.L.1955, pp. 431, 445, as amended; again amended in 1978, Ga.L. pp. 1033, 1034).
The total payback figure of the loan was $2,280, which included "Amount Financed" $1,830.59, $24 monthly maintenance charge, $114.14 loan fee and interest of $311.17. The loan made on March 19, 1976, was for a period of 24 months.
This suit was tried before the court without a jury. A judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff Swift Loan & Finance of Columbus, Inc. and against defendant Rosemary Carter. The defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in granting judgment in favor of the plaintiff because the loan fee charged under the contract was excessive. Held :
Code Ann. § 25-315(b) () provides that at the time of making an industrial loan a charge may be collected in an amount no greater than eight percent of the first $600 of the face amount of the contract plus four percent of the excess. The term "face amount of the contract is defined in Consolidated Credit Corp. of Athens, Inc. v. Peppers, 144 Ga.App. 401, 404, 240 S.E.2d 922 (), as the amount necessary for a borrower to borrow in order to obtain the amount desired. In the case of a correctly calculated industrial loan for more than 18 months, which is not discounted, the "face amount of the contract" or "amount borrowed" may be determined by striking from the total payback figure, the amount of interest to be paid under the contract and the amount of the monthly maintenance charge. Consolidated Credit Corp. of Athens, Inc. v. Peppers, supra, at p. 403, 240 S.E.2d 922 defines "amount borrowed" as the total payback figure minus interest. The contract in that case was made prior to the effective date of Code Ann. § 25-315(e) (Ga.L.1975, pp. 393, 394; 1977, p. 288) authorizing a monthly maintenance charge for each loan contract, therefore, we have adjusted the definition of "amount borrowed" to reflect this statutory change. In the case sub judice it is apparent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FinanceAmerica Corp. v. Drake
...automatic retroactive application of Peppers was used as the basis for holding the contract "null and void." Carter v. Swift Loan & Fin., 148 Ga.App. 358, 251 S.E.2d 379 (1978); Layton v. Liberty Loans, 152 Ga.App. 504, 263 S.E.2d 167 (1979); Wessinger v. Kennesaw Fin. Co., 151 Ga.App. 660,......
-
Lee v. Beneficial Finance Co. of Georgia
...Total Loan Fee $ 142.45 See Carter v. Swift Loan & Finance, 148 Ga.App. 358, 251 S.E.2d 379 (1978). Appellants, on the other hand, contend that the loan fee should have been calculated in the followingon a GILA loan of greater th......
-
Layton v. Liberty Loans of Waycross
...standing alone, affords the appellee no basis for arguing that the holding in Peppers is inapplicable here. Carter v. Swift Loan, etc., Inc., 148 Ga.App. 358, 251 S.E.2d 379 (1978) (decision in Peppers applied to loan made in 1976). However, subsequent to our decision in Peppers, the Genera......
-
Wessinger v. Kennesaw Finance Co. of Austell
...Loan Act, supra. Held: 1. The loan fee charged here was in excess of that allowed under the Act. In Carter v. Swift Loan etc. of Columbus, 148 Ga.App. 358, 359, 251 S.E.2d 379, we held: "Code Ann. § 25-315 (b) (Ga.L.1955, pp. 431, 440; 1964, pp. 288, 291; 1975, pp. 393, 394) provides that a......