Court Opinion

ID: 9582905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:32:40.263214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:44.099499
License: Public Domain

Hunstein, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U. S. 79 (121 SC 513, 148 LE2d 373) (2000) resolves this case adversely to appellant. However, a review of the Court of Appeals’ opinion reveals that in addressing the merits of appellant’s claim *886regarding the unconscionability of the Installment Contract under Georgia law, the Court of Appeals failed to apply the appropriate analysis as set forth in NEC Technologies v. Nelson, 267 Ga. 390 (478 SE2d 769) (1996), despite the trial court’s example in properly applying this case to appellant’s claim. Results Oriented v. Crawford, 245 Ga. App. 432, 440-441 (1) (538 SE2d 73) (2000). Thus, while the result reached by the Court of Appeals may be “correct and consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s recent holding,” as the majority notes, I would not apply that endorsement to all of the language employed in the lower court’s opinion.
Decided June 11, 2001.
T. Michael Flinn, for appellant.
Phears & Moldovan, Victor L. Moldovan, for appellee (case no. S00G1817).
Kenney & Solomon, Thomas S. Kenney, Robert J. Solomon, Debbie W. Flesch, for appellee (case no. S00G1820).
Chambers, Mabry, McClelland & Brooks, Rex D. Smith, Ian R. Rapaport, Beth S. Reeves, for appellees (case no. S00G1992).
Mills, Moraitakis, Kushel & Pearson, Albert M. Pearson III, David A. Webster, Ashley Carraway, Mary C. Ball, Linda J. Krisher, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, John T Marshall, amici curiae.