Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448After the levy of the execution on the mortgaged property, the defendant may file his affidavit of illegality, in which affidavit he may avail himself of any defense that he could have set up in an ordinary action upon the demand secured by the mortgage and may show that he is not justly indebted to the plaintiff in the sum claimed in the affidavit of foreclosure. The subsequent proceedings, as to the giving of bond and the trial of the issue made in the case, shall be conducted in the manner prescribed by Code Section 44-14-233.
(Ga. L. 1882-83, p. 109, § 3; Civil Code 1895, § 2756; Civil Code 1910, § 3289; Code 1933, § 67-1004.)
The mortgagor may, in an affidavit of illegality, set up any defense the mortgagor might have urged in an action on the note secured by the mortgage and which goes to show that the amount claimed is not due and owing by the mortgagor. Fellows v. Sapp, 45 Ga. App. 89, 163 S.E. 314 (1932).
- In an affidavit of illegality to the foreclosure of a mortgage on personalty, the mortgagor may utilize the defense of recoupment; but the mortgagor cannot plead setoff in such a proceeding. Holleman v. Commercial Credit Co., 66 Ga. App. 772, 19 S.E.2d 336 (1942).
It was error to dismiss an affidavit of illegality, on motion, on the ground that it was not the proper remedy of the defendant, without passing upon its merits. Crawford v. Scott, 137 Ga. 760, 74 S.E. 520 (1912).
Cited in Anderson v. Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co., 121 Ga. 688, 49 S.E. 725 (1905); Berry v. Robinson & Overton, 122 Ga. 575, 50 S.E. 378 (1905); Berckmans v. Tarnok, 151 Ga. 117, 106 S.E. 2 (1921); Hartman v. Citizens' Bank & Trust Co., 47 Ga. App. 562, 171 S.E. 195 (1933); Coolidge v. Sandwich, 49 Ga. App. 564, 176 S.E. 525 (1934); Wilder Bros. v. Montgomery, 51 Ga. App. 231, 179 S.E. 861 (1935).
As used in this subpart, the term:
(Code 1933, § 67-718, enacted by Ga. L. 1975, p. 1213, § 3.)
- Because motor homes are generally used for personal purposes rather than commercial ones, the trial court properly concluded that a loan transaction between original motor home purchaser and bank was a consumer transaction. Washington State Employees Credit Union v. Robinson, 206 Ga. App. 782, 427 S.E.2d 15 (1992).
Cited in Porter v. Midland-Guardian Co., 242 Ga. 1, 247 S.E.2d 743 (1978); Sumner v. Adel Banking Co., 244 Ga. 73, 259 S.E.2d 32 (1979).
- 68 Am. Jur. 2d, Secured Transactions, §§ 23, 590-606.
- 14 C.J.S., Chattel Mortgages, § 370.
- Chattel mortgage on property consumable in use, 49 A.L.R. 1495.
No results found for Georgia Code 44-14-241.