Brock v. Liberty Loan Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brock v. Liberty Loan Co.

217 S.E.2d 389, 135 Ga. App. 62, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1560

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 10, 1975

Docket50618

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 217 S.E.2d 389 (Brock v. Liberty Loan Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brock v. Liberty Loan Co., 217 S.E.2d 389, 135 Ga. App. 62, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1560 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

Once again we have a suit on a promissory note drawn under the Georgia Industrial Loan Act, a default judgment against defendant, and a motion by defendant to set the judgment aside, which was denied. The note attached to the complaint contained an acceleration clause in the event of default by the debtor which authorized the collection of earned as well as unearned interest. This language voids the note as it is violative of the Industrial Loan Act under our holdings in Lawrimore v. Sun Finance Co., 131 Ga. App. 96 (205 SE2d 110), aff'd., 232 Ga. 637, and Hardy v. G. A. C. Finance, 131 Ga. App. 282 (205 SE2d 526), aff'd., 232 Ga. 632. It makes no difference whether collection of the unearned interest was sought or not, the provisions in the loan agreement authorizing its collection alone voids the obligation. Lawrimore v. Sun Finance, supra. As there was a non-amendable defect on the face of the record, it was error to deny a motion to set aside the judgment. Hardy v. G.A.C. Finance, supra.

Judgment reversed.

Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bell, Chief Judge.

Once again we have a suit on a promissory note drawn under the Georgia Industrial Loan Act, a default judgment against defendant, and a motion by defendant to set the judgment aside, which was denied. The note attached to the complaint contained an acceleration clause in the event of default by the debtor which authorized the collection of earned as well as unearned interest. This language voids the note as it is violative of the Industrial Loan Act under our holdings in Lawrimore v. Sun Finance Co., 131 Ga. App. 96 (205 SE2d 110), aff'd., 232 Ga. 637, and Hardy v. G. A. C. Finance, 131 Ga. App. 282 (205 SE2d 526), aff'd., 232 Ga. 632. It makes no difference whether collection of the unearned interest was sought or not, the provisions in the loan agreement authorizing its collection alone voids the obligation. Lawrimore v. Sun Finance, supra. As there was a non-amendable defect on the face of the record, it was error to deny a motion to set aside the judgment. Hardy v. G.A.C. Finance, supra.

Judgment reversed.

Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 S.E.2d 389, 135 Ga. App. 62, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brock-v-liberty-loan-co-gactapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack