Opinion
53599.
ARGUED MARCH 3, 1977.
DECIDED MARCH 10, 1977. REHEARING DENIED MARCH 22, 1977.
Action on note. Fulton Civil Court. Before Judge Ward.
McClain, Mellen, Bowling Hickman, Thomas W. Thrash, Arthur Gregory, for appellant.
Carolyn S. Weeks, Richard K. Greenstein, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a finding that a loan contract was made in contravention of the Industrial Loan Act (Code Ann. § 25-301 et seq.) by providing for the acceleration of unearned interest, and was thus void and unenforceable. The provision in question recites that "A default in the making of any payment or part thereof shall render at the option of the Creditor, the entire unpaid balance due and payable..." (Emphasis supplied.)
We find this language to be consistent and synonymous with acceleration clauses construed by this court and the Supreme Court to include unearned interest, and therefore controlled by those cases. See Lawrimore v. Sun Fin. Co., 131 Ga. App. 96 ( 205 S.E.2d 110); affd. 232 Ga. 637 ( 208 S.E.2d 454) (1974) ("all installments"); Hardy v. G.A.C. Fin. Corp., 131 Ga. App. 282 ( 205 S.E.2d 526); affd. 232 Ga. 632 ( 208 S.E.2d 453) (1974) ("entire balance"); Allen v. Alco Fin., Inc., 131 Ga. App. 545 ( 206 S.E.2d 547) (1974) and Guyton v. Martin Fin. Corp., 135 Ga. App. 62 ( 217 S.E.2d 390) (1975) ("all remaining installments"); Frazier v. Courtesy Fin. Co., 132 Ga. App. 365 ( 208 S.E.2d 175) (1974) ("all payments"); Beneficial Fin. Co. of Atlanta v. Treff, 134 Ga. App. 17 ( 213 S.E.2d 126) (1975), cert. denied, ("entire amount due"); Harris v. Avco Fin. Corp., 135 Ga. App. 267 ( 218 S.E.2d 83) (1975) ("all remaining payments"). See also Roberts v. Allied Fin. Co., 129 Ga. App. 10 ( 198 S.E.2d 416) (1973), cert. denied, (where this court equated the contractual phrase "all remaining installments" with "entire unpaid balance"). Compare Bragg v. Household Fin. Corp., 140 Ga. App. 75 ( 230 S.E.2d 55) (1976) (where the phrase "the entire sum remaining unpaid... less any required refund of interest portion of finance charge" was upheld). The arguments and authorities cited by appellant are unpersuasive and we decline to overrule four years of well-established precedent.
Judgment affirmed. Deen, P. J., and Marshall, J., concur.