Which place’s debt rules apply—and who can help?

SettleADebt — S_GA PASS-02

Current Chapter 18-5 evidence and the monthly fee denominator

Result: The fresh reading confirms the fee-excluding denominator adopted in Pries, and it warrants narrowing PASS-01’s characterization of the conflicting AG guidance. New official legislative materials strengthen the statutory history. A readable authenticated current chapter, a controlling Georgia appellate resolution of the denominator, and Pries’s later disposition remain held.

Baseline: October 22, 2026, Pacific. Actual research access: October 22, 2026, PDT, corresponding to October 23, 2026, UTC. The final clock check was 2026-10-23 06:52:01 UTC / 2026-10-22 23:52:01 PDT.

This is the requested narrow follow-up. It does not repeat the Georgia overview or reopen attorney-case status and the broader state categories. In the discussion, Sxxx and Cxxx mean S_GA-P2-Sxxx and S_GA-P2-Cxxx. PASS-01 identifiers retain their original prefix.

A. Substantive findings

1. Current Chapter 18-5: stronger enactment evidence, but authentication remains incomplete

The AG HTML’s historical header must remain attached to it

The AG’s “Debt Adjustment Act” HTML expressly identifies itself as “Current through the 2006 Regular Session” and labels the chapter 2006. Its body nevertheless uses the Attorney General’s office as repository, while retaining older institutional terminology and stopping at §18-5-4. This mixed presentation does not establish a current consolidated chapter. The official domain does not erase the stated version limitation. [C001; S001] consumer.georgia.gov

Fresh enactment readings establish these parts of the chain

The 2003 and 2004 operative passages and the 2020 amendment were freshly read in official session-law publications. The DLG pages warn that their machine-generated text may be uncorrected; this pass does not claim image-by-image authentication of those volumes. Digital Library of Georgia+3

A concrete same-year codification problem prevents a mechanical merge

HB 90 §18(1) deletes the obsolete Office of Thrift Supervision reference from §18-5-3. However, the later SB 148 text reproduces that reference in its rendition of §18-5-3. HB 90 §54(e) expressly gives another 2015 Act priority to the extent of conflict.

Therefore, “apply HB 90’s deletion, then paste SB 148, then apply the 2020 terminology change” is not an adequate authentication method. The resulting official codification—and, if necessary, the relevant Code Revision Commission treatment and subsequent reenactment—must be read. This is a reason to retain the chapter hold, not a finding that the obsolete agency currently supplies a viable exemption. [C004, C018; S004–S005] legiscan.com+2

A separate reconstruction point concerns §18-5-3.2: the 2003 Act actually enacted it. SB 148 does not reproduce that section, but its reproduced §18-5-4 continues to cross-reference it. Its omission from SB 148’s printed sequence should not, by itself, be represented as proof of repeal. [C003; S002, S005]

Newly obtained official materials strengthen the later-currentness check

The legislature hosts the official 2025 supplement to Volume 16, 2022 edition. Its front matter identifies the Code Revision Commission, Office of Legislative Counsel and LexisNexis, and states statutory coverage through the 2025 regular session. I read the entire Title 18 supplement portion, printed pp.1–4: it contains Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 material and no Chapter 5 entry. It is a supplement to the main volume, not a replacement reproduction of Chapter 18-5. [C006; S008] legis.ga.gov+1

The Governor-hosted 2026 HB 1268 is also significant:

• §55(a) reenacts the official Code’s statutory text and arrangement, including the 2025 supplements and revised volumes.
• §55(b) distinguishes the statutory enactment from annotations, research references, history lines and other nonstatutory material.
• §55(c) preserves specified enactments omitted from the compilation, including certain later-effective provisions.
• §18 is reserved; it supplies no specific Chapter 18-5 amendment.
• The official 2026 legislative summary identifies it as Act 723, effective July 1, 2026.

The source literally uses 2025 in §55(d) and 2026 in §55(e); I have not silently corrected either. [C007; S009–S010] gov.georgia.gov+1

The 2026 check also went beyond the regular-session summary. The official special-session House Journal reproduces the limited convening purposes, and the full Governor-hosted SB 3EX text concerns election legislation. Neither supplied a Chapter 18-5 amendment. This is bounded corroboration, not a certificate that every possible indirect or later enactment has been excluded. [C008; S011–S012] legis.ga.gov+2

Remaining authentication gap: The corresponding readable official 2022 main-volume Chapter 18-5 was not obtained. The official supplement and reenactment cannot substitute for reading the statutory text they supplement and reenact. Consequently, this pass supplies substantial pieces of an enacted amendment chain, not a fully authenticated current consolidated chapter or a certified complete chain through the baseline. [C018]

2. Gross versus net: what is resolved by the actual passages

The freshly read 2003 and 2015 enactments agree on the 7.5% ceiling and the statutory base:

“the amount paid monthly by such debtor to such person for distribution to creditors of such debtor”

They do not expressly use the accounting labels “gross” or “net.” [C009; S002 §2; S005 §18/§18-5-2.]

In Pries, Doc.19, pp.4–7, the court adopts the creditor-distribution denominator, excluding the provider’s own fee. Page 5 explains that a gross-payment interpretation would deprive the limiting creditor-distribution phrase of effect. Page 6 illustrates the distinction with a creditor payment plus a separately calculated fee. Page 7 finds the claims adequately pleaded; p.10 denies dismissal. This is an express legal interpretation in a federal pleading-stage order, not statewide appellate precedent or a final liability judgment. [C010, C012; S013.] law.justia.com

The September 26, 2025 ConsumerEd article uses “off the top,” but supplies no mathematical definition, worked denominator, citation to Pries, formal opinion number or adoption order. Consequently:

• A gross-payment calculation is a possible reading of the shorthand.
• The phrase could instead describe deducting an already correctly calculated fee before disbursement.
• The article does not establish that the AG formally rejected or superseded the judicial interpretation.

PASS-01 C016 should therefore describe an apparent inconsistency or ambiguity, rather than an established formal AG gross-base rule. [C013; S014.] consumered.georgia.gov

The same shorthand appears in the October 11, 2013 ConsumerEd article, whose next paragraph restates the statutory monthly creditor-distribution formulation. Its pre-Pries appearance further prevents treating the 2025 wording alone as evidence of a deliberate response to that decision. Actual editorial intent remains unknown. [C014; S015.] consumered.georgia.gov

Reconciliation: Preserve the statutory language and the court’s construction. Preserve the agency shorthand as contrary or ambiguous guidance. Do not use that shorthand to clear a gross-payment fee calculation. A controlling statewide reconciliation remains unverified.

3. Footnote 2 and the settlement boundary

Page 6 n.2 contemplates a debtor with resources funding a lump-sum settlement; it supports the denominator illustration. It does not establish general market permission for every settlement business model. [C011; S013.]

The 2025 AG article’s item 5 describes a different factual scenario: consumers stop paying creditors and instead pay the settlement company while a settlement is pursued. That factual distinction may help explain the different language. It does not establish that the agency and court have formally reconciled all settlement-model boundaries. [C011, C013; S014 item 5.]

For this pass, the footnote clears neither provider eligibility nor an accumulated-funds program, an advance fee, a savings fee, or a particular principal-reduction service.

4. Later Pries disposition and Georgia appellate authority

Later disposition remains unresolved. The readable Justia docket expressly says it was last retrieved on January 5, 2021 and displays an incomplete sequence. Fuller public docket routes failed. Search results exposed leads concerning an interlocutory-appeal request, a settlement notice and a proposed dismissal document; the underlying later filings and an entered disposition were not successfully read.

Accordingly, this answer does not characterize the action as finally settled or dismissed, the order as vacated, an appeal as denied, or the interpretation as affirmed. [C012; failed/discovery routes F4–F6.]

Two actual Georgia appellate opinions were read for the denominator question:

Neither closes the statewide-denominator question. The search result is “no controlling Georgia appellate denominator decision identified in this pass,” not “none exists.” [C015.] law.justia.com+1

5. The two $400 premises remain conditional

These examples isolate the disputed denominator. They do not approve an actual provider or transaction.

For all three, assume:

• The transaction is covered and nonexempt.
• D is the legally qualifying creditor-distribution amount for the relevant monthly measurement.
• F includes all ordinary compensation chargeable against that ceiling.
• The fee-excluding interpretation applies.
• The relevant service, handling and fee-timing conditions have separately been satisfied.
• There are no other components unless expressly stated.

Example 1 — $400 is the creditor-distribution base

Plain text

Input/base: D = $400.00 for the relevant month.
Operator: 7.5% = 0.075.
Calculation: F ceiling = 0.075 × $400.00 = $30.00.
Result: $30.00 fee ceiling; $430.00 total if the fee is additional.
Rounding: None needed.

The conditional premise is that $400 means qualifying creditor distribution, rather than the consumer’s entire payment.

Example 2 — $400 is the entire payment, consisting only of fee plus distribution

Plain text

Inputs: T = $400.00; T = D + F.
Base: D = $400.00 − F.
Constraint: F ≤ 0.075 × ($400.00 − F).
Intermediate: 1.075 × F ≤ $30.00.
Unrounded boundary: F ≤ $27.906976744...
Conservative cent result: F = $27.90; D = $372.10.
Check: 0.075 × $372.10 = $27.9075.

No statutory rounding convention was established. Rounding down is an illustrative conservative treatment, not a newly verified legal rounding rule.

Example 3 — testing a $30 deduction from a $400 total

Plain text

Inputs: T = $400.00; fee actually deducted = $30.00.
Remaining creditor amount: $400.00 − $30.00 = $370.00.
Fee-excluding ceiling: 0.075 × $370.00 = $27.75.
Difference: $30.00 − $27.75 = $2.25 above that ceiling.

The $2.25 comparison uses the actual $370 allocation. It is not a comparison against Example 2’s different allocation.

What remains legally conditional: the applicable current text; authoritative denominator treatment; the relevant monthly accounting period; treatment of funds received and distributed in different months; and whether the payment actually has only the two assumed components. Reserves, returns, other charges, carried balances or undistributed amounts can invalidate D = T − F. An unexplained “$400 payment” is therefore insufficient input for a cleared fee result. [C016–C018.]

B. Actual source register — freshly read documents

Access code A1: October 22, 2026 PDT / October 23, 2026 UTC. Every row below was freshly read in PASS-02 at the stated passages. “Read” means the text returned by the ordinary public web tool; it does not imply inspection of every original page image.

Indexes, unavailable documents, snippets and docket leads are deliberately separated in Section E.

C. PASS-02 claim table

D. Actual earlier-claim patch map

This is a proposed evidentiary patch to the supplied records, retaining their IDs. The raw original is not edited.

Dependency crosswalk — earlier evidence reused or left untouched

This table is not an additional fresh-source register.

E. Failed routes and discovery leads — not substantive source authority

All observations below are PASS-02 observations unless expressly identified as an earlier branch result. No login, purchase, contact or expanded browser permission was used.

Search leads referring to a Doc20 interlocutory request, a related Doc21 entry, a Doc28 settlement notice and proposed dismissal material remain leads. They are not added to the actual source register as if their contents had been read.

F. Component coverage and remaining-evidence table

Researcher self-check

• Actually read: the operative passages identified in S001–S017, including the fresh historical enactments, official supplement and reenactment provisions, judicial passages, agency guidance, and the two appellate opinions.
• Not read successfully: the official main-volume chapter, the AG’s 2022 PDF contents, or the later Pries filings needed to establish final disposition and appellate history.
• Not promoted into evidence: snippets, catalog entries, incomplete docket metadata, inaccessible files, provider statements or presumed contents of candidate URLs.
• Reused with attribution: prior form observations, attorney-case findings and broader PASS-01 conditions. The coordinator’s supplied scope review is not represented as a fresh reading.
• The calculations demonstrate consequences of stated assumptions; they do not clear their legal premises.
• This is a researcher self-check, not independent review. Parallel research assistance is not represented as separate regular Chat conversations.
• This follow-up used ordinary public web research in the existing conversation. No model/account setting was changed, and the preferred model selector was not independently verified.

Continuation boundary: Current-chapter authentication, authoritative statewide denominator reconciliation and Pries’s later history remain explicitly held. Attorney-case status and every broader state category remain open. Neither Georgia nor A066 acceptance is implied.

END S_GA PASS-02.