Court Opinion

ID: 9845406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:21:13.084171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:06.157034
License: Public Domain

Jordan, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
1. In my opinion this court is in grievous error in overruling our decision in Hodges v. Community Loan &c. Corp., 234 Ga. 427 (216 SE2d 274) (1975). The very simple ruling in that case was that there can be no recovery of any kind under a loan contract which the General Assembly has declared "null and void.” By reversing Hodges this court breathes life into contracts which have been declared by the General Assembly to violate the public policy of this State. Under the majority opinion I see no reason why a gambler cannot seek redress in the courts on a gambling contract which has likewise been declared null and void by the General Assembly.
Declaring a loan contract made in violation of the Industrial Loan Act to be null and void is not a harsh result in view of the fact that some loans made under the Act can approximate an interest rate of forty (40) per cent per annum. If there was any harshness in the rule, it was ameliorated by the 1978 amendment to the Industrial Loan Act by allowing the collection of the principal amount of the loan contract if the lender shows that the violation is the result of a clerical or typographical error, and further that no penalty shall apply if the contract was made in good faith in conformity with appellate court decisions or a rule or regulation of the Commissioner. Code Ann. § 25-9903.
This amendment renders the overruling of Hodges totally unnecessary.
2. I also disagree with the holding that this amendment should be applied to contracts made before its effective date. As stated by the Court of Appeals in its opinion, a statutory change should not be *32given retrospective operation in the absence of language imperatively requiring such application, citing many cases in support of this time-worn principle.
This statute is completely void of any language indicating an intent by the General Assembly that it should be applied retrospectively.
I would affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals and therefore respectfully dissent.