Court Opinion

ID: 9616487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:47:17.401702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:45:14.716066
License: Public Domain

Ingram, Justice,
dissenting.
In my opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is eminently correct. The majority opinion refuses to express the plain message of the statutory change in *434language made by the General Assembly in Code Ann. § 25-9903 in contrast to the language found in the comparable provision of the old statute in Code Aim. § 25-313.
I dissent for the reasons given in the concurring opinion in Georgia Invest. Co. v. Norman, 231 Ga. 821, 827 (204 SE2d 740). It is quite clear to me that the General Assembly intended by the new statute that if a loan is made in violation of the law, the lender shall forfeit all interest and other charges, but not any of the principal sum advanced to the borrower.
In my opinion, the majority decision fails to confront the applicable doctrine discussed by the Court of Appeals that the law does not favor penalties and forfeitures and they must be strictly construed. We cannot give a strict construction to the language of Code Ann. § 25-9903 and reasonably conclude that the legislature intended the result reached by the majority in this case. The majority opinion also observes that "[t]he effect of the opinion of the Court of Appeals [in this case] is to impose an inconsequential penalty for the violation of the Industrial Loan Act.” One answer to that conclusion is the Court of Appeals merely gave effect to the clear intention of the statute. Still, another is that it will come as quite a shock to many lenders, who find themselves in some technical violation of the Act, to learn that the loss of all earnings for the work of their product (money) is inconsequential. This view defies the law of economics and I cannot agree that it is correct.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Undercofler and Justice Gunter join in this dissent.