Georgia Code
Article 1 - In General
§ 44-14-3. Furnishing of Cancellation by Grantee or Holder Upon Payment; Liability for Failure to Comply; Cancellation of Instrument After Failure to Comply; Liability of Agents

Any person who files an affidavit in accordance with this subsection which affidavit is fraudulent shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than three years or by a fine of not less than $1,000.00 nor more than $5,000.00, or both.
(c.1) In the event that a grantee or holder of record has failed to transmit properly a legally sufficient satisfaction or cancellation to authorize and direct the clerk or clerks to cancel the instrument of record within 60 days after a written notice mailed to such grantee or holder of record by registered or certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, return receipt requested, the clerk or clerks are authorized and directed to cancel the instrument upon recording an affidavit by an attorney who has caused the secured indebtedness to be paid in full or by an officer of a regulated or chartered financial institution whose deposits are federally insured if that financial institution has paid the secured indebtedness in full. The notice to be mailed to the grantee or holder of record shall identify the indebtedness and include a recital or explanation of this subsection. The affidavit shall include a recital of actions taken to comply with this subsection. Such affidavit shall include as attachments the following items:
(B) Confirmation of a wire transfer to the grantee or holder of record paying off such loan.
(C) A bank receipt showing payment to the grantee or holder of record of such loan.
History. Ga. L. 1975, p. 1134, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 1983, p. 677, § 1; Ga. L. 1984, p. 22, § 44; Ga. L. 1986, p. 754, § 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 3, § 44; Ga. L. 1991, p. 413, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 1998, p. 545, § 1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 862, §§ 2, 3; Ga. L. 2000, p. 136, § 44; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 3; Ga. L. 2008, p. 352, § 1/HB 1093.
The 2000 amendments. —
The first 2000 amendment, effective March 16, 2000, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, in subsection (c.1), substituted a period for a semicolon at the end of subparagraph (c.1)(2)(A) and substituted a period for “; or” at the end of subparagraph (c.1)(2)(B). The second 2000 amendment, effective July 1, 2000, substituted “certified mail or statutory overnight delivery” for “certified mail” in the first sentence of the introductory language in subsection (c.1).
The 2008 amendment, effective May 12, 2008, inserted “of the instrument” throughout subsections (b) and (c); in subsection (b), added paragraph (b)(1), redesignated former paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) as present paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4), respectively, in paragraph (b)(2), inserted “or she” near the end of the last sentence, and, in paragraph (b)(3), substituted “paragraph (2)” for “paragraph (1)”; and rewrote subsection (c). See the Editor’s note for applicability.
Editor’s notes.
Ga. L. 1991, p. 413, § 3, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: “This Act shall become effective on July 1, 1991, and shall be applicable to any written demand for the transmittal of a cancellation or satisfaction made pursuant to the provisions of Code Section 44-14-3 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated occurring on or after July 1, 1991.”
Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 16, not codified by the General Assembly, provided that the Act is applicable with respect to notices delivered on or after July 1, 2000.
Ga. L. 2008, p. 352, § 2/HB 1093, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that a demand for liquidated damages made before May 12, 2008 shall be governed by the provisions of former Code Section 44-14-3.
Law reviews.
For annual survey of law of real property, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 319 (1986).
For annual survey of real property law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 331 (2005).
For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 397 (2008).
For note, “The Great Escape: How One Plaintiff’s Sidestep of a Mandatory Arbitration Clause Was Applied to a Class in Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank,” see 68 Mercer L. Rev. 539 (2017).