Georgia Voluntary Payment Doctrine Essay Example for Free

atomic number 31 spontaneous retribution Doctrine EssayThe Georgia free Payment Doctrine is a policy that has been use in Georgia law since the 19th Century. It has been exercised so long that this policy has codified a regulation. Because it dates back two centuries when business deals were completed on bingles word, face-to-face and with a hand shake, it causes one to question if it has outdated itself and should still be used to decide court grammatical grammatical courtships in todays business world.According to Dan Kolber of the Atlanta Business Chronicle, the statute says when money is paid through ignorance of the law and there is no fraud or mistake of facts, then(prenominal) the payment is deemed voluntary and can non be recovered. Filing a protest at the time of payment does non change this rule. This law has been the deciding factor in many movements which some say have resulted in outrageous outcomes. In order for the Voluntary Payment Doctrine to be enfo rced there argon three conditions that must be met. The starting line is that the payment is made through ignorance of the law or where wholly(a) material facts are known.The person asking for reimbursement must prove that the payment was not made voluntarily because not all material facts were known at the time the payment was made. No one is forgive from a law just because he is unaware that it exists. Secondly, the person to whom this payment is made must not have collected it fraudulently. And, lastly the payment must not have been made under duress, such(prenominal) as to release a person from detention or to prevent the immediate seizure of property. The person cannot be forced or coerced to make the payment. (AGG Authority on Real Estate, Winter, 2006) This statute has returned favorable outcomes for many. unity particular Georgia case is that of an insurance confederacy who lost its bid to recover overpayments made to medical letrs. Mr. Seaton D. Purdom who was involve d in the lawsuit supports it with this doctrine. He feels It promotes commercial stability. It allows people to receive payments on account and underwrite them as payments, instead of escrow deposits. (Atlanta Business Chronicle) In this case, Cotton et al. v. Med-Cor Health Information Solutions, Inc. , Smith et al. vs. PMSI, L. P. , Yarbrough et al. v. PMSI, L. P. , and Lawrence et al. v.Smart schoolmaster Copy Corporation sets patients at various Atlanta hospitals against corporations who were responsible for photocopying medical records of patients and delivering them to authorized persons.Defendants performed the photocopying and delivery serve and inflicted charges ranging from $1. 04 to $7. 60 per page. Plaintiffs attorneys held that these charges were made in violation of the Health Records Act as they exceeded the coiffure of reasonable costs of copying and mailing the records. (Lawskills. com). They seek to recover these overpayments under the Georgia Voluntary Paym ent Doctrine.As noted above the Georgia Voluntary Payment Doctrine requires that payments of claims be made where all of the facts are not known and there is misplaced confidence or deception by the former(a) party and payments cannot be recovered unless under an urgent necessity to release personal property. In this case both parties agreed that all material facts were known when payments were made so they did not meet the first requirement of the law. The plaintiffs maintained the defendants practiced a falsehood on them by providing records the hospital was supposed to provide and billed them excessively and more than the hospital was allowed to charge.The court tack that this falsehood is not what caused the plaintiffs to make payments which they sought-after(a) to recover. Then the plaintiffs argued the payments were made through misplaced confidence. Again the court found they had no facts on which these excuses could be found. Plaintiffs claimed they made the payments becaus e they would have otherwise risked collection activity that would have hurt their credit and the court found this not to be an urgent necessity. Because the court felt they did not meet any of the requirements of the Georgia Voluntary Payment Doctrine, the plaintiffs were unable to recover any payment.However, the plaintiffs were able to recover under the Georgia Health handle Act. The court found the photocopying companies were agents of the hospital and were required under the Georgia Health Care Act to mend the cost of copying and mailing records to a reasonable amount. The plaintiffs therefore received payments of the charges deemed excessive. (Lawskills. com Georgia Caselaw) In the case S09G1664. SouthStar dexterity Services, LLC v. Ellison et al. the Georgia Voluntary Payment Doctrine was applied to the claims of the customers of Georgia rude(a) Gas.In 2006 after the Natural Gas Consumer Relief Act was passed, the Georgia Natural Gas Company modified its accusation proced ures for its customers. The company developed a new standard plan and altered the method of computing the plan. (Forthcoming Opinions, SCOG Blog). The customers, Charles Ellison and Susan Bresler represent by the Atlanta law firm Strickland Brockington Lewis sued the Natural Gas Company under a surreptitious right of action in the Gas Act. The plaintiffs sought to recoup their overpayments charged through the defendants violations of the Natural Gas Competition and Deregulation Act (Natural Gas Act).The defendant asked the court to dismiss the case due to the plaintiffs failure to establish a reasonable claim on which repayment should be given. A trial court allow a motion to dismiss the case, but an approach was filed and the tribunal of Appeals re indite the trial court decision. In the appeal the appellees disclosed several actions by the Natural Gas Company that vio upstartd different sections of the Natural Gas Act, such as charging more for vivid gas than the published marketed price.The gas company attorneys argued that the plaintiffs had made payment of their bill voluntarily, thus relieving the gas company from any wrong nor requiring them to make restitution. In March, 2010 the Georgia Supreme Court confirmed its agreement with the Court of appeals stating that the purpose of the Georgia Natural Gas Act is to protect the natural gas customer and granted the plaintiff the right to sue for return. This decision opens the door for the plaintiff to proceed with action to recover overpayment and damages from the gas company.Wall Street Investment Fraud Lawyer Blog) Although neither of these cases was decided based on the Georgia Voluntary Payment Doctrine, the plaintiffs were allowed to continue to seek their claims for their overpayments under another law. In each of these cases the attorneys for the plaintiffs sought recovery of payment under other Acts. The plaintiffs in the Cotton v. Med-Cor Health Information Solutions, Inc. et al case have recovered overpayment while the Georgia Supreme Court has made a ruling that remote the Georgia Voluntary Payment Doctrine as a defense in the case of SouthStar Energy Services v.Ellison. This ruling allows the plaintiffs in this case to proceed with their lawsuit against SouthStar. In 2000 a case was move in Georgia in which cable subscribers who failed to make their cable payments on time were charged latish fees. This group of cable customers sought to recover these penalty fees claiming they were unenforceable fines. These subscribers had voluntarily paid the additional late fees. Under the Georgia Voluntary Payment Doctrine a payment is considered voluntary if it is paid in ignorance of the law.Therefore, in this case the Court ruled that the payments were paid voluntarily by the simple fact the subscribers admitted they did not know the late penalty fees were unenforceable and was in fact ignorance of the law. (AGG Authority on Real Estate, Winter, 2006) The Georgia Volunta ry Payment Doctrine is a statute that has been used throughout the last two centuries. As has been shown in these three cases it can be a help to ones case or a disadvantage. It is a law that is used by large companies that seems to take advantage of the general public as most common folk are generally not very well versed in the law.