Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448If the mortgagor or his special agent or attorney fails to set up a defense as provided in Code Section 44-14-184, it shall not be competent for any third person to interpose a defense and neither will the court itself, of its own motion, do so. However, one who purchases mortgaged property prior to the commencement of statutory proceedings to foreclose and who is not a party to the proceedings is not bound by the judgment of foreclosure and may, when the mortgage fi. fa. is levied, go behind the judgment and set up the defense that the mortgage could not be legally enforced against him whenever this is necessary and proper to establish the claim of title upon which he relies.
(Orig. Code 1863, § 3869; Code 1868, § 3889; Code 1873, § 3965; Code 1882, § 3965; Civil Code 1895, § 2747; Civil Code 1910, § 3280; Code 1933, § 67-302.)
- This section is derived from the decisions in Osborne v. Rice, 107 Ga. 281, 33 S.E. 54 (1899), and Simmerson v. Herringdine, 166 Ga. 143, 142 S.E. 687 (1928).
- A third person, who is not a party to the record, will not be permitted to make objections to the foreclosure of a mortgage, under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-185, until that person has been regularly made a party by the judgment of the court but those not parties are not concluded by judgment. McDougald v. Hall, 3 Ga. 174 (1847); Jackson v. Stanford, 19 Ga. 14 (1855); Sutton v. Sutton, 25 Ga. 383 (1858); A.J. Williams & Co. v. Terrell, 54 Ga. 462 (1875); Lilienthal v. Champion, 58 Ga. 158 (1877); Frost v. Borders, 59 Ga. 817 (1877).
To set up a cause of action pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 44-14-185 a purchaser of mortgaged property must show some reason why the foreclosure could not have been legally enforced as against the purchaser's claim of title. Covington v. GMAC, 102 Ga. App. 683, 117 S.E.2d 554 (1960).
- In an action by a wife to cancel a deed of conveyance made by her to her husband and a mortgage on the same property made by her husband to a creditor, the wife was not estopped by the judgment foreclosing the mortgage upon the property in a statutory proceeding by the creditor against the husband, she not being a party thereto. Simmons Hdwe. Co. v. Timmons, 180 Ga. 531, 179 S.E. 726 (1935).
- A foreclosure of a mortgage by the statutory method, to which proceeding a junior vendee of the land is not a party, while not conclusive on such vendee is valid as between the holder of the mortgage and the mortgagor. Roberts v. Atlanta Cem. Ass'n, 146 Ga. 490, 91 S.E. 675 (1917).
- Under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-185 which does not require or permit a junior mortgagee to become a party to a statutory proceeding to foreclose the senior mortgage, where the property has been sold in such foreclosure proceedings the remedy of the junior mortgagee is by a bill to redeem. American Loan & Trust Co. v. Atlanta Elec. Ry., 99 F. 313 (N.D. Ga. 1899).
Creditors who are not parties, have no right to intervene to prevent a foreclosure, by virtue of O.C.G.A. § 44-14-185, but they may resort to equity to prevent the foreclosure of a fraudulent mortgage which jeopardizes their rights. Albany & Renssellaer Iron & Steel Co. v. Southern Agric. Works, 76 Ga. 135, 2 Am. St. R. 26 (1886).
- In a statutory proceeding by rule nisi to foreclose a mortgage, it is not competent for parties who claim that property belonging to them has been misappropriated, and that they have an interest in the property of the mortgagor, to intervene as defendants to the foreclosure of the mortgage and seek equitable decrees in their favor in such proceeding, by reason of O.C.G.A. § 44-14-185. If they have any equitable rights, they cannot be thus asserted. Trust Co. v. Sessions, 136 Ga. 862, 72 S.E. 347 (1911).
- By virtue of O.C.G.A. § 44-14-185 the defendant was estopped by deed from denying title to the mortgaged premises, and neither defendant nor the court, at defendant's suggestion, could intervene for the protection of the rights of a third person, who would not be bound by a judgment to which defendant was not, and could not be made, a party. Hall v. Davis, 73 Ga. 101 (1884).
A claimant against a mortgage fi. fa. cannot take advantage of the fact that the mortgage was foreclosed within 12 months from the granting of letters of administration upon the estate of the deceased mortgagor. Baker v. Shephard, 30 Ga. 706 (1860).
- All others, than parties or privies, may attack the judgment of foreclosure whenever and wherever it comes in their way and may therefore attack it collaterally. Johnston v. Crawley, 22 Ga. 348 (1857).
- One taking assignment of mortgage in payment of or as collateral security for prior debt as a bona fide purchaser, 80 A.L.R. 395.
Judicial foreclosure of mortgage as affecting one who was not personally served within jurisdiction and did not appear, a regards the value of the property or the adequacy of the bid in foreclosure, in a subsequent action to enforce his personal liability on the obligation secured by the mortgage, 120 A.L.R. 1366.
No results found for Georgia Code 44-14-185.