CRIMES AND OFFENSES Payday Lending: Amend Title 7 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Banking and Finance, so as to Provide for Licensing of Persons Who Provide Deferred Presentment Services; Provide for a Short Title; Define Certain Terms; Provide for Licenses, Qualifications, and Application Therefore; Provide for Fees; Provide for Limitations; Provide for Consumer Notices; Provide for Rules and Regulations; Provide for Penalties and Hearings; Provide for Complaint Investigation; Provide for Annual Reports; Amend Chapter 17 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Payday Lending, so as to Delete References to Deferred Presentments as Payday Loans; Prevent Unlicensed Payday Lenders from Operating in this State; Provide for Legislative Findings; Provide for Related Matters; Provide for Severability; Provide for Preemption; Provide an Effective Date; Repeal Conflicting Laws; and for Other Purposes

Citation data:

Vol: 24, Issue: 1

Publication Year:
2012
Usage 724
Downloads 707
Abstract Views 17
Repository URL:
https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol24/iss1/3
Author(s):
Georgia State University Law Review
Tags:
Law
artifact description
The bill would have repealed the prohibition in Georgia on payday lending by non-bank lenders and allowed deferred presentment services providers to operate in Georgia. Deferred presentment service lenders would have been permitted to charge a fee of $15 for every $100 advanced, provided the transaction did not exceed the lesser of $750 or 25% of the consumer's monthly gross income. The loan would be due at the consumer's next payday. The bill would have contained consumer protections that would have required the lender to inform the consumer of the right to rescind the transaction the next business day and would have required the lender to provide a mandatory repayment plan if a consumer was unable to make the required payments. Consumers would also have been prohibited from entering into multiple transactions with the same lender. There would have been a mandatory five-day waiting period between transactions with the same lender. In addition, the bill would have set up statewide licensing procedures for the payday lenders. Each applicant must have satisfied objective criteria involving fiscal responsibility and moral integrity. Moreover, a license would have been refused or revoked if an applicant, employee or 10% owners were convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude or violated the provision of the bill. A license would have been subject to annual review prior to renewal.