GA Trial court was not required to wait until end of discovery period before ruling on summary judgment.
Grant of summary judgment to creditor, affirmed in action based on debtor’s failure to make payments on home equity line of credit as trial court was not required to wait until end of discovery period before ruling on summary judgment; trial court did not err in granting summary judgment when debtor failed to provide evidence supporting affirmative defenses in support of opposition to summary judgment.
Govindasamy v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, A11A0841 (07/22/11)
Fulton County Daily Report, August 5, 2011
GA Order confirming foreclosure sale, affirmed, as creditor properly commenced confirmation proceeding.
Order confirming foreclosure sale, affirmed, as creditor properly commenced confirmation proceeding; noteholder received sufficient notice of confirmation hearing, and foreclosure proceedings were valid; noteholder pointed to no evidence showing violation of foreclosure statutes; since Court affirmed confirmation of foreclosure sale, noteholder’s claim that trial court erred in setting supersedeas bond for appeal of confirmation order was rendered moot, so appeal dismissed in A11A1443.
Muhammad v. Power Landing LLC, A11A1204, A11A1443
Fulton County Daily Report, August 5, 2011
GA Foreclosure sale, reversed, as questions of fact remained regarding fairness and validity of sale.
Decision to set aside foreclosure sale, reversed, as questions of fact remained regarding fairness and validity of sale; final money judgment entered in another case based on order setting aside foreclosure, vacated; during advertisement for sale of property, bank sold indebtedness to secured creditor; trial court said sale had to be set aside due to advertising irregularities, however, evidence showed interested bidders had notice of secured creditor’s involvement and had at least constructive notice of proper party prior to sale; secured creditor not entitled to summary judgment regarding validity of sale, as it did not file assignment until four days prior to sale, and it presented no evidence that misinformation in advertisement did not impact bidding; debtor had right to amend complaint to cure defects in fraud claim.
Amirfazli v. Vatacs Group Inc., A11A1166 (07/18/11)
Fulton County Daily Report, August 5, 2011
GA Judgment partially reversed, as bank failed to seek confirmation after foreclosing on some properties.
Judgment partially reversed in suit based on alleged breaches of series of guaranteed promissory notes; trial court erred in ruling that bank’s claims as to notes were barred as improper deficiency actions based on bank’s failure to seek confirmation after foreclosing on some properties; bank asserted claims for breach of series of promissory notes against borrowers and against parties that guaranteed notes, all of whom were related corporate entities, borrowers defaulted on notes, and bank provided notice of foreclosure as to nine of them; at foreclosure auction, bank was sole bidder, and three days afterwards, bank notified borrowers that it rescinded actions with respect to foreclosures and that foreclosures would not be consummated; since bank rescinded its action, there was no “transfer of the borrower’s right of possession and its equity of redemption to the bank” and, thus, no non-judicial foreclosure, so confirmation procedure did not apply; trial court did not err in granting bank’s motion for partial summary judgment on issue of whether certain guaranties executed in 2008 were effective under statute of frauds, even though guaranties failed to identify pre-2008 promissory notes with required specificity, since bank performed act essential to contract that resulted in detriment to bank and in benefit to guarantors, thus, guarantors were estopped from asserting statute of frauds defense to enforcement of guaranties.
Legacy Communities Group Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., A11A0696; A11A0697 (07/01/11)
Fulton County Daily Report, July 22, 2011
GA Denial of creditors’ application for confirmation of foreclosure sale under power, affirmed, as property in question had not sold for its fair market value.
Denial of creditors’ application for confirmation of foreclosure sale under power, affirmed, as evidence supported trial court’s determination that property in question had not sold for its fair market value; creditors sold their house to debtor for $319.5K, debtor installed granite throughout house, glass cook top, new sinks and two new pool pumps, then eventually defaulted on note, creditors published foreclosure notice and offered property for auction at which they were sole bidders, creditors purchased property for $230K and then filed their petition for confirmation of sale; creditors’ expert appraiser testified, but in arriving at his estimation of value, appraiser did not enter house and did not see upgrades that debtor had made.
Hammock v. Issa, A11A0470 (07/06/11)
Fulton County Daily Report, July 22, 2011
