Vandegriff v. Hamilton, 519 S.E.2d 702 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Vandegriff v. Hamilton, 519 S.E.2d 702 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Synovus Bank v. Huffer (scd, 2021-01-27)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Synovus Bank v. Huffer
D.S.C. · 2021 · confidence medium
Default on Promissory Note “In an action on a promissory note, a movant may establish a prima facie right to judgment as a matter of law [on the issue of liability] by producing the promissory note and showing that it was executed.” Ware v. Mutlibank 2009-1-RES-ADC Venture, LLC, 758 S.E.2d 145, 150 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014); Alexander v. Wachovia Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 700 S.E.2d 640, 642 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Vandegriff v. Hamilton, 519 S.E.2d 702, 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sawnee Forest, LLC v. Cre Venture 2011-1, LLC
Ga. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
See also Triple T-Bar v. DDR Southeast Springfield, 330 Ga. App. 847, 849 (1) ( 769 SE2d 586 ) (2015). 9 See OCGA § 9-11-6 (b); Shropshire, supra. 10 See Clawson v. Intercat, Inc., 294 Ga. App. 624, 628 (2) ( 669 SE2d 671 ) (2008) (finding no abuse of discretion where affidavits at issue were on file two-and-a-half months before the hearing); Suttle v. Northside Realty Assoc., 171 Ga. App. 928, 931 (2) ( 321 SE2d 424 ) (1984) (noting the trial court’s “wide discretionary authority” to permit late-filed affidavits in support of motions for summary judgment). 11 Keane v. Annice Heygood Tr…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Trendmark Homes, Inc. v. Bank of North Georgia
Ga. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Corp., 226 Ga. App. 459 (1) ( 486 SE2d 684 ) (1997). 2 (Citations omitted.) Newton v. Sibley, 273 Ga. App. 343 ( 615 SE2d 185 ) (2005), citing Vandegriff v. Hamilton, 238 Ga. App. 603, 604 ( 519 SE2d 702 ) (1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) West v. Diduro
Ga. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Corp., 226 Ga. App. 459 (1) ( 486 SE2d 684 ) (1997). 2 (Citations omitted.) Newton v. Sibley, 273 Ga. App. 343 ( 615 SE2d 185 ) (2005), citing Vandegriff v. Hamilton, 238 Ga. App. 603, 604 ( 519 SE2d 702 ) (1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alexander v. Wachovia Bank, National Ass'n
Ga. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Pope, Jr., concur. 1 Hewell v. Walton County, 292 Ga. App. 510, 510-511 ( 664 SE2d 875 ) (2008). 2 Rolling Pin Kitchen Emporium v. Kaas, 241 Ga. App. 577, 578 (2) ( 527 SE2d 248 ) (1999). 3 Vandegriff v. Hamilton, 238 Ga. App. 603, 604 ( 519 SE2d 702 ) (1999). 4 Morgan v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 237 Ga. App. 257, 258 (2) ( 514 SE2d 239 ) (1999). 5 Tucker Nursing Center v. Mosby, 303 Ga App. 80, 82 (1) ( 692 SE2d 727 ) (2010). 6 Hazlett & Hancock Constr.
cited Cited as authority (rule) DuPREE v. SunTrust Bank
Ga. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Accord Brown v. Rooks, 240 Ga. 674, 675 ( 242 SE2d 128 ) (1978); Vandegriff v. Hamilton, 238 Ga. App. 603, 604 ( 519 SE2d 702 ) (1999); Bowen v. Tucker Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rel Development, Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Co. v. First Ga. Bank, 238 Ga. 309, 310 (1) ( 232 SE2d 828 ) (1977). 6 Vandegriff v. Hamilton, 238 Ga. App. 603, 604 ( 519 SE2d 702 ) (1999). 7 Jamison v. Button Gwinnett Sav.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Newton v. Sibley
Ga. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
See OCGA§ 11-3-308 (a); Vandegriff v. Hamilton, 238 Ga. App. 603, 604 ( 519 SE2d 702 ) (1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stewart v. Johnson
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
See OCGA § 11-3-308 (a); Vandegriff v. Hamilton, 238 Ga. App. 603, 604 ( 519 SE2d 702 ) (1999).
discussed Cited "see" Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Freeman (In Re Freeman) (2×)
Bankr. S.D. Ga. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Vandegriff v. Hamilton, 238 Ga.App. 603 , 519 S.E.2d 702 (1999) (holding that the debtors’ "admission that they borrowed the money, signed the note, and defaulted” on the note established a prima facie case: and that production of the note was unnecessary); See also Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortg.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." S & A Industries, Inc. v. Bank Atlanta (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Vandegriff v. Hamilton, 238 Ga. App. 603, 604 ( 519 SE2d 702 ) (1999).
VANDEGRIFF Et Al.
v.
HAMILTON
A99A1429.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Jun 22, 1999.
519 S.E.2d 702
Kimzey, Kimzey & York, M. Keith York, for appellants., Joy R. Parks, for appellee.
Johnson, Smith, Eldridge.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
Johnson, Chief Judge.

Robert Hamilton sued Joseph Vandegriff and Janet Vandegriff on a promissory note. The record shows that Hamilton advanced $102,500 to the Vandegriffs. To insure payment of the debt, Hamilton took a security interest in the Vandegriffs’ share in a tract of property owned jointly by Hamilton and the Vandegriffs. In addition, the Vandegriffs executed a promissory note to Hamilton in the amount of $102,500, due on or before September 18, 1994.

The Vandegriffs admit that the principal amount of the promissory note is $102,500 and that interest accrues at the rate of ten percent per annum. They further admit that no payments have been made on the promissory note and that they were notified of default, the intention to demand attorney fees, and the fact that they had ten days to pay the debt without incurring attorney fees. The Vandegriffs also admit there have been no modifications, extensions or waivers of the promissory note or any terms contained therein.

[*604] Decided June 22, 1999. Kimzey, Kimzey & York, M. Keith York, for appellants. Joy R. Parks, for appellee.

The trial court granted Hamilton’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment based on the promissory note. The Vandegriffs contend Hamilton orally agreed to accept a deed to their one-third interest in the property as full payment of the note and that the trial court, therefore, erred in failing to require Hamilton to accept the property as payment of the note in full. We disagree and affirm the trial court.

In an action on a promissory note, a movant may establish a prima facie right to judgment as a matter of law by producing the promissory note and showing that it was executed. See OCGA § 11-3-308; McLemore v. Southwest Ga. Farm Credit, 230 Ga. App. 85, 87 (1) (495 SE2d 335) (1998); Braswell v. Bank of Early, 229 Ga. App. 445, 447 (494 SE2d 277) (1997). The Vandegriffs’ admission that they borrowed the money, signed the note, and defaulted established Hamilton’s prima facie case. Having established this, Hamilton was entitled to judgment unless the Vandegriffs established a valid defense. See McLemore, supra.

The Vandegriffs’ contention regarding Hamilton’s oral representations does not establish such a defense. A creditor who holds a promissory note secured by a deed may sue upon the note, demand a deed to the secured property, or pursue both remedies until the debt is satisfied. See Vaughan v. Moore, 202 Ga. App. 592 (415 SE2d 47) (1992). Thus, Hamilton was entitled to elect his remedy to cure the default. Moreover, it is well established that in the absence of fraud, accident or mistake, none of which has been alleged or proven in the present case, parol evidence cannot be considered to alter or vary the terms of a promissory note. Hovendick v. Presidential Financial Corp., 230 Ga. App. 502, 504 (1) (497 SE2d 269) (1998); McLemore, supra; Braswell, supra. Because the Vandegriffs failed to raise a valid defense, Hamilton was entitled to judgment on the note, and the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of Hamilton.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Eldridge, JJ., concur.