Southern Discount Co. v. Heide

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Southern Discount Co. v. Heide

241 S.E.2d 599, 144 Ga. App. 481, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1644

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 5, 1978

Docket54690

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 241 S.E.2d 599 (Southern Discount Co. v. Heide) 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

Southern Discount Co. v. Heide, 241 S.E.2d 599, 144 Ga. App. 481, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1644 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

The appellant sued to collect on a note made under the Industrial Loan Act (Code Ann. § 25-301 et seq.). The trial court found that the note was void as a matter of law and granted the appellee’s motion for summary judgment.

1. Under the record as it existed at the time the trial court ruled on the motion, it appears that the appellant had made conflicting disclosures as to the amount of the premium charged for credit accident and health insurance. Under Code Ann. § 25-319, the amount of all such insurance premiums must be shown "in clear terms” at the time the loan is made. Otherwise, the note is null and void under Code Ann. § 25-9903. See, e.g., Moore v. Am. Fin. System, 236 Ga. 610 (225 SE2d 17) (1976); Patman v. General Fin. Corp. of Ga., 128 Ga. App. 836 (198 SE2d 371) (1973); Credithrift of America, Inc. v. Mason, 143 Ga. App. 793 (1977). The trial court was accordingly correct in granting summary judgment to the appellee.

2. On the day that this appeal was docketed the [482]*482appellant filed with the clerk of the court below certain documents purporting to be copies of the insurance policies issued in connection with this loan transaction. These documents were subsequently transmitted to this court for inclusion in the record on appeal. However, since these documents were not made a part of the record before the trial court, we have not considered them, nor any issue based on them, in ruling on this appeal.

Argued October 12, 1977 Decided January 5, 1978. Galis, Timmons, Andrews & Head, William C. Head, for appellant. John E. Kardos, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman and Birdsong, JJ., concur.

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

Banke, Judge.

The appellant sued to collect on a note made under the Industrial Loan Act (Code Ann. § 25-301 et seq.). The trial court found that the note was void as a matter of law and granted the appellee’s motion for summary judgment.

1. Under the record as it existed at the time the trial court ruled on the motion, it appears that the appellant had made conflicting disclosures as to the amount of the premium charged for credit accident and health insurance. Under Code Ann. § 25-319, the amount of all such insurance premiums must be shown "in clear terms” at the time the loan is made. Otherwise, the note is null and void under Code Ann. § 25-9903. See, e.g., Moore v. Am. Fin. System, 236 Ga. 610 (225 SE2d 17) (1976); Patman v. General Fin. Corp. of Ga., 128 Ga. App. 836 (198 SE2d 371) (1973); Credithrift of America, Inc. v. Mason, 143 Ga. App. 793 (1977). The trial court was accordingly correct in granting summary judgment to the appellee.

2. On the day that this appeal was docketed the [482]*482appellant filed with the clerk of the court below certain documents purporting to be copies of the insurance policies issued in connection with this loan transaction. These documents were subsequently transmitted to this court for inclusion in the record on appeal. However, since these documents were not made a part of the record before the trial court, we have not considered them, nor any issue based on them, in ruling on this appeal.

Argued October 12, 1977 Decided January 5, 1978. Galis, Timmons, Andrews & Head, William C. Head, for appellant. John E. Kardos, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman and Birdsong, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 S.E.2d 599, 144 Ga. App. 481, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-discount-co-v-heide-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack