This appeal concerns the application of the statutory ante litem notice provisions of the Georgia Pawnshop Act, OCGA § 44-12-130 et seq., to an attempted class action. The trial court determined that the individual plaintiff’s efforts to comply with the ante litem notice provisions of the Act were not sufficient as to the members of the purported class. We agree and affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint and the award of attorney fees under OCGA § 44-12-131 a 7 C. On September 28, 2000, Sante L. Mack entered into a title loan transaction with Georgia Auto Pawn, Inc. GAP and pledged his 1992 Oldsmobile Cutlass as security in exchange for a 30-day cash loan of $768. The annualized interest rate of 300 percent resulted in a finance charge of $192 for the 30-day period. Mack and GAP extended the maturity date of the original pawn transaction in October, then again in November, December, and January 2001. The record shows that between October 30, 2000, and January 19, 2001, Mack made a series of cash payments to GAP that totaled $1,412.10.
Shortly after making these payments, Mack filed suit against GAP and Title Loans of America, Inc. TLA seeking damages and equitable relief for himself and other persons similarly situated. Mack alleged that GAP had violated certain mandatory disclosure provisions of the Georgia Pawnshop Act by failing to reveal fully all of the interest and pawn shop charges, particularly those applicable to contract continuation and extension periods. Mack sought class status for his suit and recognition as representative for the class. He alleged that GAP’s contract failed to include all the disclosures required by OCGA § § 44-12-138 b 6 and b 8. He also claimed that GAP had improperly charged him $18 for the cost of filing a lien and, in fact, had lent him only $750 after subtracting the $18 but then had calculated the finance charges on $768 not $750. Finally, Mack asserted that “charges not allowed, as a matter of law, have been collected by defendant from plaintiff and from hundreds perhaps thousands of persons equally situated with plaintiff.”
