he could not read the policies due to medical problems and that he told Johnny Rowland that at the time of the loan transactions. Georgia courts have decided several cases that deal with illiterate plaintiffs and their responsibilities in contract situations. E.g., Mallard v. Jenkins, 179 Ga.App. 582, 347 S.E.2d 339 (1986); International Indemnity Co. v. Smith, 178 Ga.App. 4, 342 S.E.2d 4 (1986); Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Meeks, 121 Ga.App. 592, 174 S.E.2d 585 (1970); Robertson v. Panlos, 208 Ga. 116, 65 S.E.2d 400 (1951). These decisions have established two broad principles. First, an illiterate plaintiff who signs a contract in the absence of a misrepresentation is not allowed to assert illiteracy as a ground for ignorance of the terms of the contract. Robertson, 65 S.E.2d at 120 (<HOLDING>); International Indemnity, 342 S.E.2d at 5
holding that a presumption of fraud eliminates the need to prove reliance holding that a final order of removal is sufficient by itself to establish the requisite custody holding two days is sufficient to prove causation holding that illiteracy is not of itself sufficient to prove fraud holding that the creditor must prove the elements of actual fraud