G.A.C. Finance Corp. v. Hardy
| Decision Date | 03 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | 28940,Nos. 28879,s. 28879 |
| Citation | 232 Ga. 632,208 S.E.2d 453 |
| Parties | G.A.C. FINANCE CORPORATION v. Catherine HARDY. Catherine HARDY v. G.A.C. FINANCE CORPORATION. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Lucian Lamar Sneed, John W. Bland, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Lee Payne, Alfred C. Kammer, II, Michael H. Terry, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
In 1972, after the maturity of the note in question, G.A.C. Finance Corporation ('G.A.C.') obtained a default judgment against Catherine Hardy upon a note to which the provisions of the Georgia Industrial Loan Act (Code Ann. § 25-301 et seq., Ga.L.1955, p. 431 et seq.) apply. Subsequently, the debtor moved to set the judgment aside on the double ground that (1) the note showed on its face that G.A.C. had sought to contract in the event of default by debtor for the acceleration of all remaining installments including earned and unearned interest, and (2) that the note stated that it 'shall bear interest after maturity at the rate of 8% per annum . . .', all in violation of Code Ann. § 25-9903 and Lewis v. Termplan, Inc., Bolton, 124 Ga.App. 507, 184 S.E.2d 473. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision in Hardy v. G.A.C. Finance Corp., 131 Ga.App. 282, 205 S.E.2d 526, finding merit in the first ground of the motion, but none in the second. Here, each party sought and was granted certiorari to review that part of the Court of Appeals' decision unfavorable to him.
Upon careful review of the issues presented, we conclude that the opinion of the Court of Appeals was correct as to the law and its application to the facts of this case, and we affirm that judgment without further opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except INGRAM, J., who concurs specially.
I concur in the judgment of the court in this case, but I think it needs to be emphasized that this judgment for the principal amount of the loan was a judgment on the note or loan contract itself. We have affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals which held the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to set aside this judgment because the terms of the note violate the Industrial Loan Act. However, in my view, this does not preclude the lender from recovering in a separate assumpsit action the actual monies loaned to the borrower. See the concurring opinion filed in Georgia Investment Company v. Norman, 231 Ga. 821, 827, 204...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plant v. Blazer Financial Services, Inc. of Georgia
...205 S.E.2d 110, Aff'd, 232 Ga. 637, 208 S.E.2d 454 (1974); Hardy v. G.A.C. Finance Co., 131 Ga.App. 282, 205 S.E.2d 526, Aff'd, 232 Ga. 632, 208 S.E.2d 453 (1974). Any contract violative of the Act is "null and void." Ga.Code Ann. § 25-9903. 15 Hodges v. Community Loan & Investment Corp., 2......
-
In re Jungkurth
...172 Ga.App. 537, 323 S.E.2d 720, 722 (1984); Hardy v. G.A.C. Finance Corp., 131 Ga. App. 282, 205 S.E.2d 526 (1974), aff'd, 232 Ga. 632, 208 S.E.2d 453 (1974); Union Trust v. Tyndall, 290 Md. 102, 428 A.2d 428, 432-33 (1981); Jackson Investment Co. v. Bates, 366 So.2d 225, 228-31 (Miss. 197......
-
Bell v. Loosier of Albany, Inc., 50840
...Lawrimore, 232 Ga. 637, 208 S.E.2d 454; Hardy v. G. A. C. Finance Corp., 131 Ga.App. 282, 205 S.E.2d 526; affirmed G. A. C. Finance Corp. v. Hardy, 232 Ga. 632, 208 S.E.2d 453; Frazier v. Courtesy Finance Co., 132 Ga.App. 365, 208 S.E.2d 175. Those actions were brought under the Industrial ......
-
Barrett v. Vernie Jones Ford, Inc.
...(en banc), aff'd. 232 Ga. 637, 208 S.E.2d 454 (1974), and Hardy v. G.A.C. Finance Co., 131 Ga.App. 282, 205 S.E. 2d 526, aff'd. 232 Ga. 632, 208 S.E.2d 453 (1974).6 The court in Lawrimore held that: "It is true that the record in the present case does not show on its face that the judgment ......