ebook img

Georgia Code, Volume 16, 2012 Supplement PDF

2012·12.3 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Georgia Code, Volume 16, 2012 Supplement

OFFICIAL CODE OF GEORGIA ANNOTATED 2012 Supplement Including Acts ofthe 2012 Regular Session ofthe General Assembly Prepared by The Code Revision Commission The Office ofLegislative Counsel and The Editorial Staff ofLexisNexis® Published Under Authority ofthe State of Georgia Volume 16 2010 Edition Title 18. Debtor and Creditor Title 19. Domestic Relations IncludingAnnotations to the Georgia Reports and the GeorgiaAppeals Reports Place in Pocket of Corresponding Volume of Main Set LexisNexis® Charlottesville, Virginia Copyright © 2011, 2012 BY The State of Georgia All rights reserved. ISBN 978-0-327-11074-3 (set) ISBN 978-1-4224-6356-7 5013629 (Pub.41805) THIS SUPPLEMENT CONTAINS Statutes: All laws specifically codified by the General Assembly ofthe State of Georgia through the 2012 Regular Session ofthe General Assembly. Annotations of Judicial Decisions: Case annotations reflecting decisions posted to LexisNexis® through March 30, 2012. These annotations will appear in the following tradi- tional reporter sources: Georgia Reports; Georgia Appeals Reports; Southeastern Reporter; Supreme Court Reporter; Federal Reporter; Federal Supplement; Federal Rules Decisions; Lawyers' Edition; United States Reports; and Bankruptcy Reporter. Annotations ofAttorney General Opinions: Constructions ofthe Official Code ofGeorgiaAnnotated, prior Codes ofGeorgia, Georgia Laws, the Constitution ofGeorgia, and the Consti- tution of the United States by the Attorney General of the State of Georgia posted to LexisNexis® through March 30, 2012. OtherAnnotations: References to: Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal. Emory International Law Review. Emory Law Journal. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law. Georgia Law Review. Georgia State University Law Review. Mercer Law Review. Georgia State Bar Journal. Georgia Journal of Intellectual Property Law. American Jurisprudence, Second Edition. American Jurisprudence, Pleading and Practice. American Jurisprudence, Proof ofFacts. American Jurisprudence, Trials. Corpus Juris Secundum. Uniform Laws Annotated. American Law Reports, First through Sixth Series. American Law Reports, Federal. Tables: In Volume 41, a Table Eleven-A comparing provisions of the 1976 Constitution ofGeorgia to the 1983 Constitution ofGeorgia and a Table Eleven-B comparing provisions ofthe 1983 Constitution of Georgia to the 1976 Constitution of Georgia. An updated version of Table Fifteen which reflects legislation through the 2012 Regular Session ofthe General Assembly. iii Indices: A cumulative replacement index to laws codified in the 2012 supple- ment pamphlets and in the bound volumes ofthe Code. Contacting LexisNexis®: Visit our Website at http://www.lexisnexis.com for an online book- store, technical support, customer service, and other company informa- tion. Ifyou have questions or suggestions concerning the Official Code of GeorgiaAnnotated, please write or call toll free 1-800-833-9844, fax at 1-518-487-3584, or email us at [email protected]. Di- rect written inquiries to: LexisNexis® Attn: Official Code of Georgia Annotated 701 East Water Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-5389 IV TITLE 18 DEBTOR AND CREDITOR Chap. 4. Garnishment Proceedings, 18-4-1 through 18-4-135. CHAPTER 2 DEBTOR AND CREDITOR RELATIONS ARTICLE 4 UNIFORM FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS 18-2-70. Short title. — Law reviews. For annual survey of law on business associations, see 62 Mer- cer L. Rev. 41 (2010). JUDICIAL DECISIONS Moti—on for summary judgment de- legal relationships between debtor and nied. Summaryjudgment motion filed the entities on behalfofwhich debtorhad by an insurer in response to a Chapter 7 paid the premiums and the presence of trustee's complaint charging that certain such issues foreclosed summary judg- premiums paid to the insurer by a debtor ment. Coleman v. ZurichAm. Ins. Co. (In were fraudulent conveyances that were re Darrow Auto. Group, Inc.), No. recoverable under 11 U.S.C.S. § 548 09-11228, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 5253 and/or under Georgia's Uniform Fraudu- (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2011). lent Transfers Act, O.C.G.A. § 18-2-70 et Cited in Bishop v. Patton, 288 Ga. 600, seq., was denied because case presented 706 S.E.2d 634 (2011). significant factual issues concerning the 18-2-71. Definitions. JUDICIAL DECISIONS — Transfer. Definitionofa"transfer"is 706 S.E.2d 634, overruled on other broad enough to encompass a co-owner's grounds by SRB Inv. Servs., LLLP v. withdrawal of funds from a joint bank Branch Banking & Trust Co., 289 Ga. 1, account. Bishop v. Patton, 288 Ga. 600, 709 S.E.2d 267 (2011). 2012 Supp. 18-2-74 DEBTORAND CREDITOR 18-2-74 18-2-74. Fraudulent transfer; determination of actual intent. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Badges of fraud identif—ied by fed- could seek their avoidance was legally eral court applicable. O.C.G.A. flawed. Under the state statutes, a trans- § 18-2-74 permits the trustee to avoid a fer for less than reasonably equivalent transfer made with the actual intent to value was constructively fraudulent as to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of creditors whose claims arose after the the debtor. Subsection (b) states that, in transferswhenthe debtorwas engaged or determiningactualintent, the courtcould was about to engage in a business or consider a specified list offactors among transaction for which the remaining as- other factors, which track the badges of sets of the debtor were unreasonably fraud identified by the United States small in relation to the business or trans- Court ofAppeals forthe Eleventh Circuit. action. Watson v. Powell (In re Atlantis Scarver v. M. Abuhab Participacoes S.A. Plastics, Inc.), No. 10-06349, 2011 Bankr. (In re Moskowitz), No. 10-6650-WLH, LEXIS 1147 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS4800(Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2011) (Unpublished). Nov. 28, 2011). No fraudulent transfer shown. Pleading requirements. Chapter 7 trustee was not entitled to Chapter 7 trustee's allegations were the recovery ofproperty from the debtor's sufficient to survive a creditor's motion to property under 11 U.S.C. § 544. Under dismiss the trustee's complaint seekingto the fraudulent transfer elements of avoidandrecovertransferspursuantto 11 O.C.G.A. § 18-2-74, the debtor received U.S.C. §§ 544(b)(1) and 550 when the reasonably equivalent value in exchange trustee alleged sufficient facts to suggest for the privilege ofliving in the property that, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 18-2-74(b), without the payment of rent, taxes, or the creditorreceived avoidable fraudulent insurance and in exchange for enjoying transfers from the debtor. The trustee the benefit of property improvements. allegedthatallofthetransfersweremade Pettigrew v. Rollins (In re Rollins), No. withinfouryearsofthepetitiondate, that 09-6054, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 3742 (Bankr. the transfers were from the debtors'bank N.D. Ga. Sept. 29, 2011). account, and that several badges offraud Transf—er before a crime was com- indicatedthe debtors'actualintenttohin- mitted. Although the transfer of a der, delay, or defraud including the fact housewas accompaniedbysomebadgesof thatthetransfersoccurredwhenthedebt- fraud, the trial court abused the court's ors were insolvent, the creditor was an discretion in enjoining further disposition insider of the debtors at the time of the ofthe house, pending adjudication ofthe transfers, andthecreditorkneworshould merits ofwrongful death and fraudulent have known that the debtors were in- transfer claims, since the transferor gave volved in an unlawful scheme to defraud the house to the transferor's three minor investors. Gordon v. Graybeal (In re CM grandchildren in Florida three months Vaughn, LLC), No. 10-06105-MGD, 2010 before the transferor murdered the dece- Bankr. LEXIS2547(Bankr. N.D. Ga.June dent. Bishop v. Patton, 288 Ga. 600, 706 21, 2010). S.E.2d634, overruledonothergroundsby Court rejected transferees' argument SRB Inv. Servs., LLLPv. Branch Banking that a Chapter 7 trustee could not plausi- & Trust Co., 289 Ga. 1, 709 S.E.2d 267 bly assert the existence ofa creditor with (2011). an allowed claim that gave the creditor Fraudulent transfe—r by individual standing under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1) to accused of murder. Court did not assert a constructively fraudulent trans- abuse the court's discretioninenteringan fer claim under O.C.G.A. § 18-2-74 and interlocutory injunction barring further Del. CodeAnn. tit. 6, § 1304 because the dispositionoftheproceedsfromjointbank assertion that only an unsecured creditor accounts pending final disposition of with a claim arisingpriorto the transfers fraudulent transfer and wrongful death 2012 Supp. 18-2-74 DEBTORAND CREDITOR RELATIONS 18-2-74 lawsuits because badges of fraud indi- tions and obstruction ofthe creditor's ef- cated an actual intent to hinder, delay, or forts to discover the details; vague asser- defraud a decedent's estate and heirs ofa tions ofharm supported by no citation to full recovery. The transferor's adult child evidence in the record are insufficient to came up from Florida to withdraw the sustain a defense oflaches, and there is a fundsfromjointbank accounts in Georgia balance between a plaintiff's knowing three days after the transferor was ar- that a cause of action exists and that rested for the murder of the decedent. interim injunctive relief may be needed Bishop v. Patton, 288 Ga. 600, 706 S.E.2d and sitting on the plaintiff's rights to the 634, overruled on other jgrounds by SRB prejudice of the defendant. SRB Inv. Inv. Servs., LLLP v. Branch Banking & Servs., LLLP v. Branch Banking & Trust Trust Co., 289 Ga. 1, 709 S.E.2d 267 Co., 289 Ga. 1, 709 S.E.2d 267 (2011). (2011). — Trial court did not abuse the court's Motion to dismiss denied. Court discretion in entering an interlocutory in- could not say that a potential contract junction to preserve the status quo pend- claimwouldbeimpermissiblyintertwined ing adjudication ofthe merits ofthe cred- with plaintiffs' Uniform Fraudulent itor's action against the debtors alleging Transfer Act (UFTA) claim. Although breach of contract and fraudulent trans- plaintiffs were ultimately seeking to en- fers in violation of the Georgia Uniform force rights granted by the indenture, Fraudulent Transfers Act (UFTA), their UFTA claim depended on facts and O.C.G.A. § 18-2-70 et seq., because fore- circumstances outside of any contractual closing on collateral ofuncertain remain- rights or obligations provided by the in- ingvalue,goingthroughconfirmationpro- denture Akanthos Capital Mgmt., LLC v. ceedings, and suing the insolvent debtors CompuCredit Holdings Corp., No. to reclaim the deficiency and then having l:10-cv-844-TCB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS to recover the fraudulently transferred 28568 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 15, 2011). assets to collect on the ensuingjudgment Discovery of—attorney-client com- was not an adequate remedy at law since munications. Judgment creditor it was not nearly as practical and as could inquire into attorney-client commu- efficient to the ends of justice and its nications only as the communications prompt administration as the remedy in were related to the planning or execution equity enjoining further transfers tempo- ofthe transition from the limited liability rarily so that the creditor could collect a company (LLC) to the other entities. The final judgment; when a money judgment creditor could not inquire into communi- is likely to be uncollectible because a cations made after these transactions debtor has fraudulently moved the debt- were carried out, even ifthose communi- or's assets in an attempt to dissipate or cations concernthe possible legal implica- concealtheassetsfromacreditor, Georgia tions ofthe transactions. Tindall v. H & S law, both before and under the Georgia Homes, LLC, No. 5:10-cv-044(CAR), 2011 UFTA, gives the creditor the right to seek U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2299 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 10, interlocutory reliefby freezing the assets 2011). — where the assets are. SRB Inv. Servs., Interlocutory injunction proper. LLLPv. Branch Banking&Trust Co., 289 Trial court did not abuse the court's dis- Ga. 1, 709 S.E.2d 267 (2011). cretion in entering an interlocutory in- Trial court did not abuse the court's junction to preserve the status quo pend- discretion in entering an interlocutory in- ing adjudication of the merits of the junction to preserve the status quo pend- creditor's action againstthe debtors alleg- ing adjudication ofthe merits ofthe cred- ing breach of contract and fraudulent itor's action against the debtors alleging transfers because the debtors presented breach of contract and fraudulent trans- no evidence of harm from the creditor's fers in violation of the Georgia Uniform delay in amending the creditor's com- Fraudulent Transfers Act (UFTA), plaint to seek an interlocutoryinjunction, O.C.G.A. § 18-2-70 et seq., because at and the delay resulted primarily from the least seven statutory badges of fraud debtors' concealment of the debtors' ac- listedintheUFTA, O.C.G.A. § 18-2-74(b), 2012 Supp. 18-2-74 DEBTORAND CREDITOR 18-2-75 were implicated, and the creditor also genuine dispute regarding whether the presented evidence as a non-statutory investor took the transfers in good faith, badge of fraud of the debtors' pattern of or gave reasonably equivalent value in maintainingjust enough funds in certain exchange for the transfers; although a accounts to satisfy the debtors' financial significant portion of the uncertainty in covenants at the end ofeach quarter and the evidence arose from the fact that the then transferring the funds away shortly investor refused to respond to the trust- thereafter; under the UFTA, O.C.G.A. ee'srequestsfordiscovery,thetrusteehad § 18-22-77(a)(3)(A), the trial court was done nothing more than highlight the in- authorized to enter an interlocutory in- vestor'suseofU.S. Const., amend.V. Kerr junctionagainstfurtherdispositionbythe vB.aHnakrr.t(ILnErXeICShri3s4t3o2u),(NBoa.nk0r8.-6N42.0D,.20G1a.0 debtororatransferee,orboth, oftheasset tSerravnss.f,erLrLedLPorv.ofBortahnecrhprBoapnerktiyn.gS&RBTrIunsvt. SaenpOct.e.Co.2fG3.a,At2.r0a1§n0s)f.1e8r-2m-7a4d,eawliltohwosutthreeceavioviidn-g Co., 289 Ga. 1, 709 S.E.2d 267 (2011). reasonably equivalent value when the Summaryjudgment improper. debtor was either engaged or about to Bankruptcy court denied a Chapter 7 engage in a business or transaction for trustee's motion for summary judgment which the remaining assets ofthe debtor on the trustee's claim that transfers that wereunreasonablysmallinrelationtothe were made by a mortgage company to an business or transaction, or the debtor in- investor were avoidable under 11 U.S.C. tended to incur or believed or reasonably § 544 and the Georgia Uniform Fraudu- shouldhave believedthathe orshewould lent Transfer Act, O.C.G.A. § 18-2-74 et incur debts beyond his or her ability to seq., because a person who owned the payasthedebtsbecamedue. Scarverv. M. company used the company to operate a Abuhab Participacoes S.A. (In re Ponzischeme. Thetrusteehadtheburden Moskowitz), No. 10-6650-WLH, 2011 of showing that there was no genuine Bankr. LEXIS 4800 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Nov. issue of material fact, and there was a 28, 2011). 18-2-75. Transfer or obligation fraudulent if incurred without receiving reasonably equivalent value. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Disputeo—verlawfirm'sfeespayable whether the services constituted reason- by debtor. In a complaint seeking to ably equivalent value. Davis v. recover pre-petition transfers made by a McDermott Will & Emery LLP (In re Chapter 11 debtor to a law firm, the law Tom's Foods, Inc.), No. 07-4012, 2010 firm's motion for summaryjudgment was Bankr. LEXIS 3720 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. Oct. denied as there was a genuine dispute of 20, 2010). material fact regarding whether the Obligation and pay—ments thereon debtor failed to receive reasonably equiv- evaluatedseparately. Inafraudulent alent value for the transfers as required conveyance action, the need to evaluate a by either 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(l)(B)(I) or debt separately from the payments O.C.G.A. § 18-2-75(a). The law firm con- thereonwas evidencedby 11 U.S.C. § 548 tended that the firm's invoices demon- and O.C.G.A. § 18-2-75(a), which permit- stratedthatthe firm provided substantial ted the obligation and the payments to be legalservicestothedebtorinexchangefor avoided separately or together. Watts v. the payments the firm received, while the Peachtree Tech. Partners, LLC (In re Pal- debtor'sresponsibleofficercontendedthat isades at West Paces Imaging Ctr., LLC), the descriptions of work in the invoices No. 11-5183, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 3576 were too vague and cursory to evaluate (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Sept. 13, 2011). 2012 Supp. 18-2-77 DEBTORAND CREDITOR RELATIONS 18-2-79 18-2-77. Relief for creditor against fraudulent transfer or obli- gation. JUDICIAL DECISIONS — Transfer prior to death. Although ing breach of contract and fraudulent the transfer ofa house was accompanied transfers in violation ofthe Georgia Uni- by some badges of fraud, the trial court form Fraudulent- Transfers Act (UFTA), abused the court's discretion in enjoining O.C.G.A. § 18-2-70 et seq., because at further disposition ofthe house, pending least seven statutory badges of fraud adjudication of the merits of wrongful listedintheUFTA, O.C.G.A. § 18-2-74(b), death and fraudulent transfer claims were implicated, and the creditor also since the transferor gave the house to the presented evidence as a non-statutory transferor's three minor grandchildren in badge of fraud of the debtors' pattern of Florida three months before the maintainingjust enough funds in certain transferormurderedthe decedent. Bishop accounts to satisfy the debtors' financial v. Patton, 288 Ga. 600, 706 S.E.2d 634, covenants at the end ofeach quarter and overruled on other grounds by SRB Inv. then transferring the funds away shortly Servs., LLLP v. Branch Banking & Trust thereafter; under the UFTA, O.C.G.A. Co., 289 Ga. 1, 709 S.E.2d 267 (2011). — § 18-22-77(a)(3)(A), the trial court was Interlocutory injunction proper. authorized to enter an interlocutory in- Trial court did not abuse the court's dis- junctionagainstfurtherdispositionbythe cretion in entering an interlocutory in- debtororatransferee,orboth, oftheasset junction to preserve the status quo pend- transferred or ofother property. SRB Inv. ing adjudication of the merits of the Servs., LLLP v. Branch Banking & Trust creditor's action againstthe debtors alleg- Co., 289 Ga. 1, 709 S.E.2d 267 (2011). 18-2-78. Conditions for voidability of transfer or obligation; judgment. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Summaryjudgment improper. previously brokered mortgages for the Creditorfailedto showgoodfaithunder creditor, the facts that the creditor in- O.C.G.A. § 18-2-78 in receiving fraudu- vested substantial funds, received no lent transfers from a bankruptcy debtor promissory notes, and was paid no inter- asreturnsonthecreditor'sinvestmentsin est were sufficient to indicate that the the debtor's Ponzi scheme, and thus the creditor should have been suspicious of creditor was not entitled to summary the nature of the transactions. In re judgment; the creditor was an educated Christou v. Cressaty Metals, Inc., No. and sophisticated businessman and, de- 08-6402, 2010Bankr. LEXIS 3430 (Bankr. spitethecreditor'sassertionthatthecred- N.D. Ga. Sept. 23, 2010). itorhadnoreasontodoubtthedebtorwho 18-2-79. Time for commencement of action. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Limitations on actions. § 544becausethedebtorfiledthedebtor's Chapter7trusteewasnotbarredbythe petition before the state statute oflimita- statute of limitations under O.C.G.A. tions expired, butwas barred from pursu- § 18-2-79 or under 11 U.S.C. § 546 from ing avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 548 of pursuingacauseofactionunder 11U.S.C. any transfer occurring prior to two years 2012 Supp. 18-2-79 DEBTORAND CREDITOR T.18, C.4 before the petition was filed. Watts v. Cited in Bishopv. Patton, 288 Ga. 600, Peachtree Tech. Partners, LLC (In re Pal- 706 S.E.2d 634 (2011). isades at West Paces Imaging Ctr., LLC), No. 11-5183, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 3576 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Sept. 13, 2011). 18-2-80, Principles of law and equity remain applicable; appli- cation of state and federal law. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Bishop v. Patton, 288 Ga. 600, 706 S.E.2d 634 (2011). CHAPTER 4 GARNISHMENT PROCEEDINGS Article 1 Article 4 General Provisions Postjudgment Garnishment Proceedings Generally Sec. 18-4-1. Definitions; practice andproce- Sec. dure generally. 18-4-62. Contents and service of sum- 18-4-3. Amendment of affidavits, mons ofgarnishment; require- bonds, garnishee answer, or ments as to filing ofanswer to summons. pleadings. 18-4-66. Forms for postjudgment gar- 18-4-8. Definitions; entity as gar- nishment. nishee; execution and filing by certain officers or employees of Article 5 an entity. Answer by Garnishee and Article 2 Subsequent Proceedings Property and Persons Subject to 18-4-80. Effectofrelease ofsummons of Garnishment garnishment on garnishee. 18-4-81. Effect of defendant's traverse 18-4-20. Property subject to garnish- on garnishee; filing ofbond by ment generally; claim amount defendant; entry of judgment and defendant's social security on bond. number on summons; informa- 18-4-82. Contents ofgarnishee answer. tion to be contained on sum- 18-4-83. Service ofanswer ofgarnishee mons of garnishment upon fi- on plaintiffor attorney. nancial institution. 18-4-84. Delivery to court of property 18-4-21. Garnishment ofsalaries ofoffi- admitted to be subject to gar- cials and employees of state nishment; property in safety and its subdivisions; exemp- deposit box. tion; summons. 18-4-85. Traverse of answe—r of gar- 18-4-23. Serviceofsummonsofgarnish- nishee by plaintiff Time pe- ment controlled by Civil Prac- riod; discharge for failure to ticeAct. traverse. 2012 Supp.

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.