Patman v. General Finance Corporation of Georgia., 128 Ga. App. 836, 198 S.E.2d 371 (1973)

Georgia Court Of Appeals, (February 08, 1973)

Docket number: 47942
ARGUED

HALL, Presiding Judge. - ARGUED
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/patman-general-finance-corporation-20482164
Id. vLex: VLEX-20482164

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Summary:

Judgment reversed. Evans and Clark, JJ., concur.

FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Carter Et Al. v. Credithrift of America, Inc., 143 Ga. App. 256, 238 S.E.2d 257 (1977)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Household Finance Corporation of Atlanta v. Rogers Et Al., 137 Ga. App. 315, 223 S.E.2d 462 (1975)

Text:

Richard D. Ellenberg, for appellant.

The defendant in a suit on a loan contract appeals from the denial of her motion to set aside a default judgment pursuant to Code Ann. 81A-160 (d).

1. Defendant contends there is a non-amendable defect on the face of the pleadings in that the amount charged for level term credit life insurance is in violation of the Industrial Loan Act. This same point was recently considered by this court and determined adversely to the defendant. Mason v. Service Loan & Finance Co., 128 Ga. App. 828.

2. However, defendant also contends there is another non-amendable defect, i.e., the failure of the contract (which was in the record as an exhibit with the pleadings) to show in clear terms "the amount of each class of insurance carried and the premiums paid thereon . . ." as required by Code Ann. 25-319. Close scrutiny of the contract reveals that while the form provides for either level or decreasing term insurance, neither word was struck out, checked or in any way designated as the type of insurance purchased. Further, nowhere in the contract is the amount of insurance shown. All this borrower would know from reading the contract was that a stated premium was paid for credit insurance. To discover what she had actually purchased, she would have had to either secure the policy itself from the lender or go to the Industrial Loan Commissioner who could compUte the type and amount based upon his regulations. The Act does not put this burden on the borrower; it clearly reqUires disclosure of this information in the contract.

As the contract is, on its face, in violation of 25-319, it is therefore void under Code Ann. 25-9903; and as this defect was non-amendable and on the face of the pleadings, the court erred in denying the motion to set aside the judgment.

Lewis N. Jones, B. J. Roberts, for appellee.

1973

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access