Georgia Supreme Court · US (GA) · 2018 · Decided
Citation/Docket: 820 S.E.2d 704 (Ga. 2018)
Posture: Funded consumers vs. funder
Funder(s) involved: Cherokee Funding
Consumers argued their funding agreements violated Georgia's Payday Lending and Industrial Loan Acts.
Held: contingent, non-recourse funding agreements are not 'loans' under those statutes.
Mirror image of Coffman, the same product is a loan in Colorado and not in Georgia. (Note: Georgia adopted a funding statute in 2025, changing the landscape.)
Georgia adopted its own litigation funding statute in 2025, changing the regulatory landscape this decision was decided under.
Matters like this one often turn on expert testimony, on valuation, industry custom and practice, legal ethics, or damages. The Institute partners with world-class expert witness referral companies for this purpose.
Compiled from public sources (court filings, published opinions, and secondary reporting) as part of the Institute's Phase 1 Dispute Library research. This is educational material, not legal advice; case citations should be independently verified before relied upon.