Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 44-14-162 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 44 PROPERTY

Section 14. Mortgages, Conveyances to Secure Debt, and Liens, 44-14-1 through 44-14-613.

ARTICLE 7 FORECLOSURE

44-14-162. Sales made on foreclosure under power of sale - Manner of advertisement and conduct necessary for validity; filing.

  1. No sale of real estate under powers contained in mortgages, deeds, or other lien contracts shall be valid unless the sale shall be advertised and conducted at the time and place and in the usual manner of the sheriff's sales in the county in which such real estate or a part thereof is located and unless notice of the sale shall have been given as required by Code Section 44-14-162.2. If the advertisement contains the street address, city, and ZIP Code of the property, such information shall be clearly set out in bold type. In addition to any other matter required to be included in the advertisement of the sale, if the property encumbered by the mortgage, security deed, or lien contract has been transferred or conveyed by the original debtor to a new owner and an assumption by the new owner of the debt secured by said mortgage, security deed, or lien contract has been approved in writing by the secured creditor, then the advertisement should also include a recital of the fact of such transfer or conveyance and the name of the new owner, as long as information regarding any such assumption is readily discernable by the foreclosing creditor. Failure to include such a recital in the advertisement, however, shall not invalidate an otherwise valid foreclosure sale.
  2. The security instrument or assignment thereof vesting the secured creditor with title to the security instrument shall be filed prior to the time of sale in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county in which the real property is located.

(Ga. L. 1935, p. 381, § 2; Ga. L. 1981, p. 834, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, p. 856, § 1; Ga. L. 2008, p. 624, § 1/SB 531.)

The 2001 amendment, effective July 1, 2001, added the second through fourth sentences.

The 2008 amendment, effective May 13, 2008, designated the existing provisions as subsection (a), and added subsection (b).

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2001, p. 856, § 2, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the 2001 amendment "shall become effective July 1, 2001, and shall apply with respect to sales under power which are first advertised on or after that date."

Law reviews.

- For survey article on real property law, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 345 (2008). For article, "Buying Distressed Commercial Real Estate: What are the Alternatives?," see 16 (No. 4) Ga. St. B.J. 18 (2010). For comment on Ruff v. Lee, 230 Ga. 426, 197 S.E.2d 376 (1973), see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 264 (1973). For comment, "Are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac State Actors? State Action, Due Process, and Nonjudicial Foreclosure," see 65 Emory L. J. 107 (2015).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

General Consideration

O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 is constitutional, and a foreclosure pursuant to it does not violate procedural due process rights. National Community Bldrs., Inc. v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 232 Ga. 594, 207 S.E.2d 510 (1974).

There is no denial of due process of law because no hearing is required before sale. Southern Mut. Inv. Corp. v. Thornton, 131 Ga. App. 765, 206 S.E.2d 846 (1974).

Equal protection.

- Since no meaningful government involvement to constitute state action is involved, any contention that O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 violates the equal protection or due process provisions of the Constitution is without merit. Coffey Enters. Realty & Dev. Co. v. Holmes, 233 Ga. 937, 213 S.E.2d 882 (1975).

No state action.

- A creditor's power of sale is derived from the parties' contractual undertaking rather than from O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162. Therefore, the mere enactment and enforcement of that section does not itself constitute state action. Roberts v. Cameron-Brown Co., 410 F. Supp. 988 (S.D. Ga. 1975), rev'd on other grounds, 556 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1977).

O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 is unconstitutional as to pre-existing contracts where the security deed contains contradictory provisions as to sale on default. Atlantic Loan Co. v. Peterson, 181 Ga. 266, 182 S.E. 15 (1935); Gentry v. Hibbler-Barnes Co., 113 Ga. App. 1, 147 S.E.2d 31 (1966).

O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162, unlike the personal property foreclosure Acts, does not itself create any rights in creditors. Law v. USDA, 366 F. Supp. 1233 (N.D. Ga. 1973); Global Indus., Inc. v. Harris, 376 F. Supp. 1379 (N.D. Ga. 1974).

Protects consumer interests.

- O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 provides minimal requirements for the exercise of any contractual power of sale contained in security instruments. In this sense, it may be deemed protective of consumer interests. Law v. USDA, 366 F. Supp. 1233 (N.D. Ga. 1973); Global Indus., Inc. v. Harris, 376 F. Supp. 1379 (N.D. Ga. 1974).

Power of sale contractual.

- O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 regulates the manner in which foreclosure sales under powers contained in security deeds are conducted; but, the creditor's power of sale is derived from the parties' contractual undertaking rather than from that section. Global Indus., Inc. v. Harris, 376 F. Supp. 1379 (N.D. Ga. 1974).

O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 does not come into operation unless there already exists a power of sale contained in a deed to secure debt, mortgage, or other lien contract. It does not direct that a power of sale be employed; it merely specifies the minimal procedures to be employed once the parties have entered into a contractual relation. Law v. USDA, 366 F. Supp. 1233 (N.D. Ga. 1973); Global Indus., Inc. v. Harris, 376 F. Supp. 1379 (N.D. Ga. 1974).

Section does not authorize such sales.

- O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 merely regulates the manner in which foreclosure sales under powers contained in security deeds are conducted and does not even directly authorize such sales. Roberts v. Cameron-Brown Co., 410 F. Supp. 988 (S.D. Ga. 1975), rev'd on other grounds, 556 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1977).

Issues of standing and assignment not relevant.

- Property owner's claim that a bank was not a real party in interest was not relevant to a confirmation proceeding pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 as the matter was commenced in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 44-14-161(a) by the person instituting the foreclosure proceedings; issues of standing and assignment were irrelevant to the confirmation proceeding. White Oak Homes, Inc. v. Cmty. Bank & Trust, 314 Ga. App. 502, 724 S.E.2d 810 (2012), cert. denied, No. S12C1120, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 671 (Ga. 2012).

Inclusion of nonjudicial foreclosure in deed.

- O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 does govern the exercise of private powers of sale, but it does not require the inclusion of nonjudicial foreclosure in a deed to secure debt or a mortgage. Roberts v. Cameron-Brown Co., 556 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1977).

No confirmation where no indication of proper advertising or notification.

- Where no evidence appeared in the transcript of the hearing on the confirmation petition tending to indicate either that the sale was properly advertised or that the landowner was properly notified of the sale, the judgment of confirmation must be reversed. Martin v. Federal Land Bank, 173 Ga. App. 142, 325 S.E.2d 787 (1984), aff'd, 254 Ga. 610, 333 S.E.2d 370 (1985).

Assignment recorded after notice of sale.

- Because Georgia law requires only that the foreclosing entity record the security deed prior to the time of sale, that the assignment was recorded after the notice of sale under power was first published did not affect the trustee's authority to foreclose on the property after recordation. Phillips v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Sept. 12, 2014).

Preservation for review.

- Property owner's claim that a foreclosure advertisement did not comply with O.C.G.A. §§ 9-13-140(a) and44-14-162 was waived on appeal due to the owner's failure to comply with Ga. Ct. App. R. 25(a)(1); the owner did not show how the enumeration of error was preserved for review, and it did not provide any relevant citation to the record to show that the claim of error was raised below. White Oak Homes, Inc. v. Cmty. Bank & Trust, 314 Ga. App. 502, 724 S.E.2d 810 (2012), cert. denied, No. S12C1120, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 671 (Ga. 2012).

Resale of property when first sale invalid.

- Trial court did not err in allowing a bank to resell property because the first foreclosure sale was invalid and, therefore, inoperative, and the bank cured the invalidity by conducting a second foreclosure; when the lender is also the purchaser at an invalid sale the lender can treat the sale as void and resell the property in the manner that the lender should have sold the property in the first place. Duke Galish, LLC v. SouthCrest Bank, 314 Ga. App. 801, 726 S.E.2d 54 (2012).

Trial court did not err in allowing a bank to resell property because the borrower did not show that the bank acted in bad faith during the foreclosure process; the bank undertook to remedy the defect in the first foreclosure sale by dismissing the action to confirm the sale and by proceeding to foreclose again, after the assignment had been recorded. Duke Galish, LLC v. SouthCrest Bank, 314 Ga. App. 801, 726 S.E.2d 54 (2012).

Trial court erred by failing to confirm sale.

- Trial court erred by denying a creditor's petition to confirm the foreclosure sale of six townhouses because the sale satisfied applicable notice and advertisement requirements and the uncontradicted evidence showed that the townhouses did sell for at least fair market value. RBC Real Estate Fin., Inc. v. Winmark Homes, Inc., 318 Ga. App. 507, 736 S.E.2d 117 (2012).

Borrowers lacked standing to challenge assignment of security deed.

- In a wrongful foreclosure action, the district court did not err in concluding that the borrowers lacked standing to challenge the assignment of the security deed because, even though the assignment allegedly contained a patent defect in attestation, they were not parties to the assignment and had demonstrated no other right to challenge it. Haynes v. McCalla Raymer LLC, 793 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2015).

Cited in Smith v. Associated Mtg. Cos., 186 Ga. 121, 197 S.E. 222 (1938); Giordano v. Stubbs, 228 Ga. 75, 184 S.E.2d 165 (1971); Thompson v. Maslia, 127 Ga. App. 758, 195 S.E.2d 238 (1972); First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Kunes, 128 Ga. App. 565, 197 S.E.2d 446 (1973); First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Kunes, 230 Ga. 888, 199 S.E.2d 776 (1973); Giordano v. Stubbs, 356 F. Supp. 1041 (N.D. Ga. 1973); Kilgore v. Life Ins. Co., 138 Ga. App. 890, 227 S.E.2d 860 (1976); Jones v. Hamilton Mtg. Corp., 139 Ga. App. 239, 228 S.E.2d 170 (1976); FDIC v. Ivey-Matherly Constr. Co., 144 Ga. App. 313, 241 S.E.2d 264 (1977); Fleming v. Federal Land Bank, 144 Ga. App. 371, 241 S.E.2d 271 (1977); Grizzle v. Federal Land Bank, 145 Ga. App. 385, 244 S.E.2d 362 (1978); Five Dee Ranch Corp. v. Federal Land Bank, 148 Ga. App. 734, 252 S.E.2d 662 (1979); Heard v. Decatur Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 157 Ga. App. 130, 276 S.E.2d 253 (1980); FDIC v. Dye, 642 F.2d 833 (5th Cir. 1981); Armstrong v. Lattimore, 164 Ga. App. 232, 296 S.E.2d 188 (1982); United States v. Fidelity Capital Corp., 888 F.2d 1344 (11th Cir. 1989); First Nat'l Bank v. Loggins, 207 Ga. App. 814, 429 S.E.2d 278 (1993); Dickens v. Calhoun First Nat'l Bank, 208 Ga. App. 489, 431 S.E.2d 121 (1993); Cummings v. Anderson, 173 Bankr. 959 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994); Ames v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 298 Ga. 732, 783 S.E.2d 614 (2016).

Notice

No notice beyond that required by law, the advertisement, and the contract is necessary. Southern Mut. Inv. Corp. v. Thornton, 131 Ga. App. 765, 206 S.E.2d 846 (1974).

Holder of mortgage or trust deed not required to give notice.

- In the absence of a specific provision to that effect, the holder of a mortgage or trust deed with power of sale is not required to give notice of the exercise of the power to a subsequent purchaser or incumbrancer; and the validity of the sale is not affected by the fact that such notice is not given. Miller Grading Contractors v. Georgia Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 247 Ga. 730, 279 S.E.2d 442 (1981).

Right to notice other than by advertisement.

- Only the property owner was entitled to receive any notice of the initiation of foreclosure proceedings other than by advertisement. Breitzman v. Heritage Bank, 180 Ga. App. 171, 348 S.E.2d 713 (1986).

By receiving actual notice of foreclosure sale, appellant received more notice than law required, since notice by advertisement in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 is sufficient. McKinney v. South Boston Sav. Bank, 156 Ga. App. 114, 274 S.E.2d 34 (1980).

The holder of a secondary deed to secure debt is not entitled to any notice beyond that called for by the contract. Ruff v. Lee, 230 Ga. 426, 197 S.E.2d 376 (1973), for comment, see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 264 (1973).

Holders of inferior security deed assigned to foreclosing party were not entitled to receive and to rely upon notice of the exercise of power of sale in first security deed other than that provided for in the first security deed and O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162. Kennedy v. Gwinnett Com. Bank, 155 Ga. App. 327, 270 S.E.2d 867 (1980).

Junior lien holders and mortgagees are not entitled to any notice of sale except by publication under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162. Chattanooga Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Northwest Recreational Activities, Inc., 4 Bankr. 33 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1980).

The fact that the advertisement did not state that the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code had been lifted with respect to the debtor's property did not tend to "chill" the sale of the property. Shingler v. Coastal Plain Prod. Credit Ass'n, 180 Ga. App. 539, 349 S.E.2d 785 (1986).

Failure to meet notice requirements.

- At a hearing for confirmation of a foreclosure sale, if either the notice or the advertisement does not substantially meet legal requirements, the sale should be set aside; but, not every irregularity or deficiency at this point will void the sale. Walker v. Northeast Prod. Credit Ass'n, 148 Ga. App. 121, 251 S.E.2d 92 (1978).

Foreclosure sale was void where the required legal advertisement was not published during the week immediately preceding the sale. Foster v. F & M Bank, 108 Bankr. 361 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1989).

The alleged failure to advertise the four weeks immediately preceding the sale pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-13-141, would not render the sale absolutely void. Stripling v. F & M Bank, 175 Ga. App. 75, 332 S.E.2d 373 (1985).

Advertisement which a bank published when the bank sold a bowling alley at a foreclosure sale, which provided a metes and bounds description of the property, was sufficient under O.C.G.A. §§ 9-13-40 and44-14-162 to foreclose on and convey title only to the real property, and a trial was required to determine the amount of money the bank had to turn over to a Chapter 7 debtor's bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 542 because the bank improperly sold the debtor's personal property. The court found that it could not determine on summary judgment whether bowling alley lanes and pin setters the bank sold were fixtures or personal property, and the court ordered the parties to present evidence on that issue at trial. Lubin v. Ga. Commerce Bank (In re Southern Bowling, Inc.), Bankr. (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Oct. 8, 2010).

Trial court's grant of summary judgment to a mortgagee was error in property owners' wrongful foreclosure action, as the foreclosure was invalid under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162(a) since the notice did not comply with O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2(a); the notice not only did not properly identify the secured creditor, but rather, the notice misidentified the creditor. Reese v. Provident Funding Assocs., LLP, 317 Ga. App. 353, 730 S.E.2d 551 (2012).

There remained a material question of fact as to plaintiff debtors' claim to set aside a foreclosure sale based on the lack of proper statutory notice called for in O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162(a) because, under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2(b), nonjudicial foreclosure procedure required that a "copy" of the notice submitted to the publisher be sent to the debtor. The notice sent to the debtors differed from the one published. Rainey v. FMF Capital, LLC, F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2012).

Trial court erred in dismissing a pro se borrower's complaint for wrongful foreclosure and breach of contract against the borrower's lender's alleged assignee; the trial court could not consider documents attached to the motion to dismiss, and the complaint adequately alleged failure to give the borrower notice and improper advertising, contrary to O.C.G.A. §§ 44-14-162(a) and44-14-162.2. Babalola v. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., 324 Ga. App. 750, 751 S.E.2d 545 (2013).

Failure to include a reinstatement balance.

- Notice of foreclosure under a power of sale contained in a deed to secure debt was not defective because it failed to provide a reinstatement balance. Wright v. Barnett Mtg. Co., 226 Ga. App. 94, 485 S.E.2d 583 (1997).

Notice of foreclosure sale held sufficient.

- Bank gave proper statutory notification of a foreclosure sale to property owners pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162(a) when the bank sent to the property's address and the property owners' primary residence, by certified mail, a written notice of the foreclosure sale that specified the bank as the foreclosing party by name, address, and telephone number pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2. Mortensen v. Bank of Am., N.A., F. Supp. 2d (M.D. Ga. Nov. 17, 2011).

Foreclosure notice sent by a loan servicer or agent of a secured party was not defective under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162. Howard v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Aug. 17, 2012).

Foreclosure advertisement sufficient.

- Foreclosure sale advertisement of a condominium development was sufficient although the advertisement did not note that several units in the development had been sold prior to the foreclosure. The description of the property was correct in itself, and the excepted units were identified on the courthouse steps at the time of the sale. Dan Woodley Cmtys., Inc. v. Suntrust Bank, 310 Ga. App. 656, 714 S.E.2d 145 (2011).

Superior court did not err in finding that a lender's advertisement of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale properly included a description of the property in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 9-13-140(a) because the legal description in the advertisement was identical to the description in the security deed by which the lender took the lender's interest from a construction company and guarantors; thus, there was no discrepancy between the two, and the advertisement properly reflected the interest taken under the deed and available at the foreclosure sale. Diplomat Constr., Inc. v. State Bank of Tex., 314 Ga. App. 889, 726 S.E.2d 140 (2012).

Sale properly confirmed.

- Trial court did not err in confirming the November sale of certain real estate in a foreclosure action because the mortgagor failed to show that it was deprived of any protection afforded by O.C.G.A. § 44-16-161 as the confirmation proceeding commenced in connection with the November sale comprised a new action after the July sale was invalidated, all of the advertisement requirements were met, and the property was sold for its true market value. Howser Mill Homes, LLC v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 318 Ga. App. 148, 733 S.E.2d 441 (2012).

Sale must be advertised in every county where property located.

- Trial court did not err in denying a mortgagee's application for confirmation of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale because the court properly ruled that the mortgagee's advertisement failed to comport with the statutory requirements of O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162(a); a sale of real property under a power of sale made pursuant to § 44-14-162(a) must be advertised in every county where the property or any portion of the property is located. Nicholson Hills Dev. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 316 Ga. App. 857, 730 S.E.2d 572 (2012).

Conduct of Sale

Manner of sales.

- O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 requires that sales be advertised and conducted in the county in which the real estate is located and at the time, place and usual manner of sheriff's sales, not that sales under power are required to be conducted at the usual time of sheriff's sales in the particular county where the property is located. Butler v. Forsyth County Bank, 153 Ga. App. 122, 264 S.E.2d 502 (1980).

Given evidence that a security deed was delivered to the clerk's office at 9:41 a.m. on the morning of the day of a foreclosure sale, and because the legal hours of sales were from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., the assignment of the security deed to the assignee was filed prior to the sale as required by O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162(b). L & K Enters., LLC v. City National Bank, N.A., 326 Ga. App. 744, 755 S.E.2d 270 (2014).

Crucial point of inquiry on confirmation.

- Not every irregularity furnishes a basis for voiding a foreclosure sale. The crucial point of the inquiry on confirmation is to insure that the sale was not chilled and the price bid was in fact market value. Stripling v. F & M Bank, 175 Ga. App. 75, 332 S.E.2d 373 (1985).

Confirmation of sale.

- The court's inquiry in a confirmation of a foreclosure sale should go only to the value of the real estate on the date of sale, in the course of the examination to determine which the fairness of the technical procedures used may be examined, but only for the purpose of making sure that the sale was not chilled and the price bid was in fact market value. Shantha v. West Ga. Nat'l Bank, 145 Ga. App. 712, 244 S.E.2d 643 (1978); Walker v. Northeast Prod. Credit Ass'n, 148 Ga. App. 121, 251 S.E.2d 92 (1978).

Whether in bankruptcy or not, before a deficiency action may be brought by a creditor who forecloses on Georgia real estate, it must have the price at which the property sold judicially confirmed to be an accurate reflection of the property's fair market value. United States v. Oakland City Apts., Inc., 1 Bankr. 123 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1979).

Trial court did not err by confirming a foreclosure sale because issues as to whether the foreclosing bank recorded an assignment of the deed to secure debt before the foreclosure sale and the validity of the assignment were irrelevant to the confirmation proceeding. River Walk Farm, L.P. v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 321 Ga. App. 173, 741 S.E.2d 165 (2013).

Payment of surplus received from sale.

- Grantee of deeds to secure debt had to pay to grantors the surplus from a foreclosure sale of two properties to the grantee's agent and a subsequent transfer of the properties to third parties for profit. Tower Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Smith, 204 Ga. App. 910, 423 S.E.2d 257, cert. denied, 204 Ga. App. 922, 423 S.E.2d 257 (1992).

Upon the failure of a purchaser to comply with a high bid, a property sold at public auction may not be conveyed to the next highest bidder without complying with the terms of O.C.G.A. §§ 9-13-161 and44-14-162. Little v. Fleet Fin., 224 Ga. App. 498, 481 S.E.2d 552 (1997).

Credit sale not found.

- If a sheriff's sale was, in other respects, lawful, the mere fact that the sheriff gave a bidder to whom the property had been sold time within which to raise the money to pay for the property would not render it a credit sale. Dorsey v. North Am. Life Ins. Co., 217 Ga. 650, 123 S.E.2d 919 (1962).

Sale not consummated prior to bankruptcy.

- Because a creditor conducted a foreclosure sale of a bankruptcy debtor's property shortly before the debtor filed a bankruptcy petition, the debtor retained a right of redemption which passed to the bankruptcy estate since the sale was not consummated by payment of the bid amount and execution of a deed prior to the debtor's bankruptcy. Chase Home Fin. LLC v. Geiger (In re Geiger), 340 Bankr. 422 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2006).

No entitlement to relief.

- Borrower who claimed that a mortgage company, a company (LLC) that serviced the borrower's loan, the mortgage company's nominee, and the LLC's foreclosure counsel violated the borrower's rights when they refused to rescind a mortgage and foreclosed on investment property failed to allege facts which showed that the LLC or the nominee violated state law, the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the court denied the borrower's request for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction prohibiting foreclosure. The borrower incorrectly cited O.C.G.A. § 44-14-236 as the basis for the borrower's claims under state law, and the borrower failed to allege facts that entitled the borrower to relief under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 et seq., Georgia's nonjudicial foreclosure statute. Hennington v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. May 15, 2009).

Wrongful foreclosure claim sufficiently pled.

- Trial court erred by dismissing the mortgagors' complaint for wrongful foreclosure because, construed in the light most favorable to the mortgagors, the complaint sufficiently alleged that the bank owed obligations to the mortgagors under the security deed and that the bank breached those contractual obligations by going forward with the foreclosure sale despite the error in the published foreclosure advertisements. Racette v. Bank of Am., N.A., 318 Ga. App. 171, 733 S.E.2d 457 (2012).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 55 Am. Jur. 2d, Mortgages, § 573 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 59A C.J.S., Mortgages, § 626 et seq.

ALR.

- Statute affecting mortgagee's rights and remedies in respect of deficiency as unconstitutional impairment of obligation of contract, 108 A.L.R. 891; 115 A.L.R. 435; 130 A.L.R. 1482; 133 A.L.R. 1473.

Recognition of action for damages for wrongful foreclosure - types of actions, 82 A.L.R.6th 43.

Necessity of production of original note involved in mortgage foreclosure - twenty-first century cases, 86 A.L.R.6th 411.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162

Total Results: 10  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

You v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 293 Ga. 67 (Ga. 2013).

Cited 72 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 20, 2013 | 743 S.E.2d 428, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 1539

...After careful analysis, we conclude that current law does not require a party seeking to exercise a power of sale in a deed to secure debt to hold, in addition to the deed, the promissory note evidencing the underlying debt. We also conclude that the plain language of our statute governing notice to the debtor, OCGA § 44-14-162.2, requires only that the notice identify “the individual or entity [with] full authority to negotiate, amend, and modify all terms *68of the mortgage with the debtor.” This construction of OCGA § 44-14-162.2 renders moot the third and final certified question, which we do not address. In 2003, Appellants Chae Yi You and Chur K....
...red a secured creditor, such that the deed holder can initiate foreclosure proceedings on residential property even if it does not also hold the note or otherwise have any beneficial interest in the debt obligation underlying the deed? (2) Does OCGA § 44-14-162.2 (a) require that the secured creditor be identified in the notice described by that statute? (3) If the answer to the preceding question is “yes,” (a) will substantial compliance with this requirement suffice, and (b) did defendant...
...1973) (statutes governing non-judicial foreclosure set “minimal requirements for the exercise of any contractual power of sale contained in security instruments”).4 These limited statutory protections are codified in OCGA §§ 44-14-160 through 44-14-162.4 and consist primarily of rules governing the manner and content of notice that must be given to a debtor in default prior to the conduct of a foreclosure sale. For example, OCGA § 44-14-162 (a) requires that sales under power must “be advertised and conducted at the time and place and in the usual manner of the sheriff’s sales in the county in which [the] real estate......
...ith the debtor, and shall be sent by registered or certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, return receipt requested, to the property address or to such other address as the debtor may designate by written notice to the secured creditor. OCGA § 44-14-162.2 (a)....
...tion to the deed. Moreover, the term “secured creditor,” which is used to signify the foreclosing party, is not defined in the statute, an omission particularly notable given the statute’s explicit definition of the term “debtor.” See OCGA § 44-14-162.1....
...regardless of the note’s enforceability”); Brinson v. McMillan, 263 Ga. 802 (2) (440 SE2d 22) (1994) (party could exercise rights under security deed even if action on note barred by statute of limitations). Also revealing are the most recent amendments to OCGA §§ 44-14-162 and 44-14-162.2, enacted in 2008 amidst the Great Recession and the burgeoning foreclosure: crisis....
...of sale in accordance with the terms of the deed even if it does not also hold the note or otherwise have any beneficial interest in the debt obligation underlying the deed. 2. In the second certified question, the district court asks whether OCGA § 44-14-162.2 (a) requires that the secured creditor be identified in the notice to the debtor....
...concern that dramatic change could cause turmoil in the secondary mortgage market, which in the long run would be detrimental to borrowers.” 25 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. at 273. We note that the district court’s Order and Opinion states that a “dispositive question in this case” is “whether OCGA § 44-14-162.2 (a) requires that a foreclosure notice identify an entity as the secured creditor.” See Order and Opinion, at 23....
Copy

Calhoun First Nat'l Bank v. Dickens, 264 Ga. 285 (Ga. 1994).

Cited 42 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 31, 1994 | 443 S.E.2d 837, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 1812

...alhoun First National Bank. Subsequently, Mr. Dickens transferred his interest in the property to Mrs. Dickens by warranty deed. After Mrs. Dickens defaulted, the bank sent Mr. Dickens, but not Mrs. Dickens, notice of the default as required by OCGA § 44-14-162....
...husband. The trial court denied her motion, and the jury returned a verdict for the bank. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because Mrs. Dickens, as owner of the property, did not receive notice of the foreclosure and sale pursuant to OCGA § 44-14-162, the sale should have been set aside....
Copy

Ames v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 298 Ga. 732 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 33 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 7, 2016 | 783 S.E.2d 614

...roperty – authority that Chase is supposedly undermining. The deed holder does have discretion as to whether and when to initiate a foreclosure, but it has no duty to forgo or delay foreclosure in favor of negotiating with the debtor. See OCGA § 44-14-162.2 (a) (“Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require a secured creditor to negotiate, amend, or modify the terms of a mortgage instrument.”)....
...a debtor could have standing to challenge the validity of an assignment indirectly, if an invalid assignment violated a statutory protection and thereby injured the debtor. Along these lines, the Ameses argue that Chase failed to comply with OCGA § 44-14-162.2 (a), which says: Notice of the initiation of proceedings to exercise a power of sale in a mortgage, security deed, or other lien contract shall be given to 6 We need not address in this case the situati...
...On the contrary, the party sending the notice does not have to be a creditor at all, so long as it has been authorized by the secured creditor. See Carr v. U.S. Bank, NA, 539 Fed. Appx. 926, 929 (11th Cir. 2013) (“An entity with authority to act on behalf of the secured creditor may send the relevant notice [under OCGA § 44-14-162.2 (a)]....
...That individual or entity may be the holder of the security deed, or the note holder, or an attorney or servicing agent. See You v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 293 Ga. 67, 74-75 (743 SE2d 428) (2013). See also Reese v. Provident Funding Assoc., 327 Ga. App. 266, 267-268 (758 SE2d 329) (2014). Because § 44-14-162.2 (a) does not require notice to the debtor of who the current security deed holder is, the statute cannot provide a mechanism for the debtor to assert claims that the (potentially unnamed) secured creditor does not actually have a va...
...als correctly held that the Ameses lack standing to challenge the assignment of the security deed 7 The legislature has indicated its desire to ensure that only the record holders of deeds initiate foreclosure proceedings. OCGA § 44-14-162 (b) requires that “[t]he security instrument or assignment thereof vesting the secured creditor with title to the security instrument shall be filed prior to the time of sale in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the coun...
...to be conducted by the current owner or holder of the mortgage, as reflected by public records,” Ga. L. 2008, p. 624, § 1. Because Chase recorded its assignment as required and the Ameses have not brought a distinct challenge under this statute, we need not decide whether § 44-14-162 (b) could ever provide a debtor with standing to challenge a foreclosure based on an unrecorded or facially invalid assignment. See Duke Galish LLC v. SouthCrest Bank, 314 Ga. App. 801, 803 (726 SE2d 54) (2012) (leaving open the question of whether a failure to comply with § 44-14-162 (b) rendered the sale void or voidable)....
...es not provide constructive notice, but a latently defective deed may be admitted to record). But see Haynes v. McCalla Ramyer, LLC, 793 F3d 1246, 1252-1253 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding that debtors lacked standing to challenge an assignment using OCGA § 44-14-162 (b) on the ground that the assignment was not properly attested). 19 to Chase.8 Judgment affirmed....
Copy

PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Smith, 298 Ga. 818 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 4, 2016 | 785 S.E.2d 505

...Ga. July 27, 2009), an unpublished federal district court opinion that based its brief analysis of the issue on cases, like Foster, dealing with a different sort of statute. Archer is not persuasive, much less binding, on this point. Current OCGA § 44-14-162.2 requires that a debtor must be given 30 days’ notice prior to a non-judicial foreclosure sale. “Debtor” is expressly defined as the grantor of the mortgage, security deed, or other lien contract....
...” shall mean the current owner of the property encumbered by the debt, if the identity of such owner has been made known to and acknowledged by the secured creditor prior to the time the secured creditor is required to give notice pursuant to Code Section 44-14-162.2. OCGA § 44-14-162.1. Ultimately, the codifiers made Sections 1 and 2 of the 1935 Act into OCGA §§ 44-14-161 and 44-14-162, and Sections 3 to 6 into OCGA §§ 44-14-162.1 to 44-14-162.4 — and in so doing, limited the “notice requirements of this Act” language of Section 5 (b) to say in OCGA § 44-14-162.3 “the notice requirement [singular] of Code Section 44-14-162.2.”
Copy

McCollum v. Pope, 411 S.E.2d 874 (Ga. 1992).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 17, 1992 | 261 Ga. 835

...Upon the default by the grantor of a security deed, the grantee initiated a sale under power contained in the deed. It is undisputed that the grantee mailed a notification of the sale under power correctly addressed to the grantor in accordance with OCGA § 44-14-162.2....
...(b) The notice required by subsection (a) of this Code section shall be given by mailing to the debtor a copy of the published legal advertisement or a copy of the notice of sale submitted to the publisher. [Emphasis supplied.] Before the enactment of OCGA § 44-14-162.2 in 1981, foreclosure required only notice by publication. OCGA § 44-14-162....
Copy

Parks v. Bank of New York, 614 S.E.2d 63 (Ga. 2005).

Cited 9 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 6, 2005 | 279 Ga. 418, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 1761

...Ordyna, Matthew Francis McGahren, Norcross, for Appellant. Morris, Schneider & Prior, Kyle Shigeyaki Kotake, Atlanta, for Appellee. HINES, Justice. In this appeal, the plaintiff debtor challenges, on procedural due process grounds, the constitutionality of OCGA § 44-14-162.2, [1] *64 which provides for mailing or delivering notice to the debtor of a sale made on foreclosure under power of sale....
...the Superior Court of Fulton County asking for equitable relief to set aside the sale and alleging wrongful foreclosure. The Bank moved for summary judgment. Parks amended her complaint to add, inter alia, a claim that the notice provisions of OCGA § 44-14-162.2 violated rights to due process under the State and Federal Constitutions. Parks then moved for summary judgment, arguing that "OCGA § 44-14-162.2 does not afford a Georgia Mortgagees [sic] due process, as required by the Federal and State Constitutions, in ensuring that Mortgagees receive actual notice of a pending foreclosure sale of their home." The superior court denied Parks's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the Bank. Parks contends that OCGA § 44-14-162.2 does not comport with Federal and State due process standards because it does not ensure that there is "actual notice," i.e., actual receipt....
...ing *65 party seeks to recover the difference in the money owed under the contract and the amount obtained at the foreclosure sale. If no deficiency exists after the sale, judicial review is unnecessary. Id. There is no state action involved in OCGA § 44-14-162.2. The statute merely provides the mechanism for giving notice to the debtor, as defined in OCGA § 44-14-162.1, of the foreclosure under power of sale. However, pretermitting the issue of the lack of state action in this attempted procedural due process challenge, the appeal suffers from other infirmities. The gravamen of Parks' argument is that OCGA § 44-14-162.2 compromises the rights of "mortgagees" like herself....
...o mortgagees in support of her proposition that the statute's notice provisions are constitutionally inadequate. Yet, Parks as the borrower and the grantor of the security deed is certainly not in the position of a "mortgagee" in this case. See OCGA § 44-14-162.1; Arp v....
...Pope, 261 Ga. 835, 411 S.E.2d 874 (1992), this Court plainly determined that when the grantee in a security deed mails a notification of the sale under power correctly addressed to the grantor of the security deed in accordance with the provisions of OCGA § 44-14-162.2, the actual receipt, or want of receipt, by the grantor is immaterial to the right of the grantee to sale under power. We decline Parks's invitation to invalidate McCollum and its progeny. See Alliance Partners v. Harris Trust & Savings Bank, supra at 515(1), 467 S.E.2d 531. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] OCGA § 44-14-162.2 provides: (a) Notice of the initiation of proceedings to exercise a power of sale in a mortgage, security deed, or other lien contract shall be given to the debtor by the secured creditor no later than 15 days before the date of the proposed foreclosure....
Copy

Funderburke v. Kellet, 257 Ga. 822 (Ga. 1988).

Cited 9 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 12, 1988 | 364 S.E.2d 845

...Notice by publication that this right may be affected does not satisfy the requirements of due process under Mennonite. 2. Appellant argues that appellees have not met their burden of proving title because they failed to comply with the notice requirements of OCGA §§ 44-14-162.2 and 44-14-162.3 when they foreclosed on the property under the deed to secure debt from Johnson and purchased the property at the foreclosure sale....
...Appellant contends there is no evidence to show that the property was “to be used as a dwelling place by the debtor at the time the . . . security deed . . . was entered into,” and therefore appellees may not benefit from the exclusion of OCGA § 44-14-162.2 (a). The undisputed evidence in this case shows that at the time appellees sold the property to Johnson it was being used as either a florist shop or a lawyer’s office....
Copy

Arrington v. Reynolds, 274 Ga. 114 (Ga. 2001).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 16, 2001 | 549 S.E.2d 401, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 2217

...In this case, it is apparent that appellate jurisdiction lies in the Court of Appeals because plaintiffs do not dispute defendant’s record ownership of the property - they simply seek to set aside the deed based on improper notice of the foreclosure proceedings. See OCGA § 44-14-162.2....
Copy

Abdalla v. Reagin Enter., Inc., 256 Ga. 279 (Ga. 1986).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 3, 1986 | 347 S.E.2d 585

...he land by deed to Reagin Enterprises, Inc. It is this latter deed which Abdalla sought to have the court below set aside. The basis upon which Abdalla claims the deed should be set aside is his failure to receive the 15-day notice required by OCGA § 44-14-162.2. (Fourteen days notice was given.) This contention fails on account of OCGA § 44-14-162.4, which provides that a deed under power shall contain a recital setting forth the giving of the 15-day notice....

Pnc Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Smith (Ga. 2016).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 22, 2016 | 347 S.E.2d 585

...for a similar notice requirement – the 30-day notice of a non-judicial foreclosure sale that must be given to debtors (who are defined for purposes of this provision to include original mortgagors and current owners, but not guarantors, see OCGA § 44-14-162.1) under OCGA § 44-14-162.2. See OCGA § 44-14- 162.3 (“No waiver or release of the notice requirement of Code Section 44-14-162.2 shall be valid when made in or contemporaneously with the security instrument containing the power of nonjudicial foreclosure sale ....
...3 nonjudicial foreclosure sale . . . .” (emphasis added)). When the Code was reorganized into the Official Code of Georgia Annotated the next year, however, the sections added in the 1981 amendment were re-codified as separate Code sections 44-14-162.1 to 44-14-162.4, with the no-waiver provision reworded to expressly apply only to the notice requirement in § 44-14-162.2....