Williams filed his notice of appeal prior to the trial court’s ruling on his motion, divesting the trial court of jurisdiction to consider the argument set forth therein.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to United Community Bank in its action against Kevin A. Williams and others to enforce a promissory note, holding that Williams’ appeal presented nothing for its review. Williams filed his notice of appeal prior to the trial court’s ruling on his motion to set aside the summary judgment order, divesting the trial court of jurisdiction to consider the argument set forth therein. Thus, the trial court did not consider the argument, and the Court could not consider it for the first time on appeal.
Williams v. United Community Bank, A11A2096 (01/26/12)
Fulton County Daily Report, February 3, 2012
GA Claims against buyers of her chiropractic practice.
Denial of plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on her claims against buyers of her chiropractic practice, reversed, as plaintiff established prima facie case for enforcement of parties’ $50K promissory note and buyers’ defense of lack of consideration was meritless; despite any quarrels that arose after parties signed purchase agreement, adequate consideration supported note at time of its execution because buyers took immediate possession of business and began operating it as their own; trial court also erred in concluding that buyers were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim under note based on her failure to deliver stock in professional corporation, as parties’ purchase agreement constituted asset sale, not sale of stock; trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment to buyers on plaintiff’s claim for $10K shortfall in cash tendered by buyers, as plaintiff’s conveyance of DRX unit to third party prior to execution of agreement did not breach her obligations thereunder; similarly, trial court erred in granting summary judgment to buyers on their counterclaim against plaintiff concerning DRX; trial court erred in failing to enter judgment sua sponte in favor of plaintiff on buyers’ claim that plaintiff breached agreement to create smooth transition, as purchase agreement only contained plaintiff’s promise to assist in orderly transition; grant of summary judgment to buyers on plaintiff’s fraud claims regarding use of tax identification numbers and approved provider status associated with business, affirmed; denial of partial summary judgment to buyers on their counterclaims against plaintiff for defamation and tortious interference with business relations, affirmed; because trial court erred in part in its rulings on parties’ motions for partial summary judgment, jury instructions and verdict form at trial also constituted legal error.
West v. Diduro, A11A1059 (10/18/11)
Fulton County Daily Report, November 4, 2011
GA Summary judgment to bank in its action to collect on promissory note.
Denial of summary judgment to plaintiff bank in its action to collect on promissory note, reversed, as defendants’ admissions that they entered into note and guaranty at issue and failed to pay their respective financial obligations established plaintiff’s prima facie right to repayment; plaintiff loaned approximately $250K to individual defendant to finance purchase of stock in bank where she served as member of Board of Directors, and she refinanced loan in name of her company; when bank closed, plaintiff accelerated debt after determining that stock collateral was worthless and thus default had occurred pursuant to terms of note; defendants asserted estoppel defense based on alleged misrepresentation of bank consultant that bank would be sold, but integration clauses in note and guaranty barred defendants from claiming reliance on any misrepresentations not contained in agreements, plaintiff had no duty to advise defendants regarding viability of business venture financed by loan, defendants failed to show that plaintiff intended to deceive them in making loan, plaintiff honored terms of note, and any purported promise to continue to renew note was inactionable because it was vague and indefinite; evidence did not support defense of breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, as express terms of note authorized plaintiff to accelerate note upon occurrence of default, which included devaluation of collateral; grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on defendants’ counterclaim for fraudulent inducement and securities fraud, affirmed, as, even if consultant’s alleged misrepresentation about sale of bank could be attributed to plaintiff, it was inactionable because it related to future event and was not made with knowledge that it was false, it did not constitute false representation as to bank’s financial condition, and defendants did not show justifiable reliance on representation, especially given that individual defendant was member of bank’s Board of Directors with access to all information necessary to make stock investment decision.
Griffin v. State Bank of Cochran, A11A1466; A11A1467 (10/17/11)
Fulton County Daily Report, November 4, 2011
GA trial court’s partial grant of summary judgment to bank on its conversion claim and suit on promissory note and guaranty agreements against development company, VACATED.
GA trial court’s partial grant of summary judgment to bank on its conversion claim and suit on promissory note and guaranty agreements against development company, VACATED, and case remanded for bank to elect its remedy; although bank was free to pursue recovery under alternative theories, such as conversion and suit on note, it was entitled to only one satisfaction of damages.
Marvin Dev. Co. V. United Community Bank, A09A1824 (03/02/10), 10 FCDR 634
From: Fulton County Daily Report, March 19, 2010.
GA grant of summary judgment to bank, AFFIRMED in consolidated case to collect on unpaid promissory notes.
Grant of summary judgment to bank, AFFIRMED in consolidated case to collect on unpaid promissory notes; bank had no obligation to mitigate its damages and it gave proper notice e-acceleration; bank had no obligation to pursue foreclosure proceedings, but was authorized, both by law and promissory notes, to pursue only lawsuits against debtors and guarantors to recover debts, thus, bank had no obligation to mitigate its damages with regard to collateral; bank did not violate OCGA 44-14-85(a), which states that withdrawal of foreclosure proceedings prior to completion rescinds acceleration of debt and reinstates debt to terms and conditions prior to acceleration, since subsequent default occurred, allowing bank to exercise its right to re-accelerate; promissory notes did not require notice of re-acceleration and, if such duty did exist, bank gave notice of re-acceleration in text of its complaint in this case.
REL Dev. Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust co. A10A1686; A10A1691 (07/29/2010) 10 FCDR 2672
From: Fulton County Daily Report, 08/13/2010.
GA grant of summary judgment bank on $1.4M note, AFFIRMED; debtor’s inability to pay its promissory note did not constitute special circumstances under confirmation statute.
Ga grant of summary judgment bank on $1.4M note, AFFIRMED; debtor’s inability to pay its promissory note did not constitute special circumstances under confirmation statute, OCGA 44-14-161; confirmation statute does not ‘ “prevent recovery of an independent contractual debt, not a deficiency, voluntarily assumed;” ‘ only legislature could amend confirmation statute to address independent contractual obligations.
The River Farm LLC v. Suntrust Bank, A10A1500 (07/21/2010), 10 FCDR 2593.
From the Fulton County Daily Report, 08/06/2010.
