O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 44-14-62 (2019)

Out-of-state deeds to secure debt and bills of sale

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When executed outside this state, deeds to secure debt and bills of sale to secure debt shall be signed by the maker, attested by an officer as provided in Code Section 44-2-15, and attested by one other witness.

History

Ga. L. 1931, p. 153, § 1; Code 1933,

§ 67-1303; Ga. L. 2015, p. 937, § 7/HB 322.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Applicability. - There is nothing in O.C.G.A. § 44-14-62 that in any way changes the rules governing the priority of conditional sales contracts and junior judgments; that section applies only to bills of sale to secure debt and security deeds. Parham v. Heath, 90 Ga. App. 26, 81 S.E.2d 848, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 618 (1954). Deed of trust. - Deed of trust to property in Georgia given as security for bonds which was executed out of the State of Georgia, and was attested by a notary public of that state and another witness was properly recorded. In re Lookout Mt. Hotel Co., 50 F.2d 421, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1402 (D. Ga.), rev’d, 53 F.2d 463, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 2691 (5th Cir. 1931). Mere misdescription of bond in a mortgage to a surety executed under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-62 will not have the

effect to render the mortgage invalid as a lien upon the property described, either as to the mortgagor personally or mortgagor’s vendees. Emerson v. Knight, 130 Ga. 100, 60 S.E. 255, 1908 Ga. LEXIS 237 (1908). Vesting holder of security interest with title by filing. - When the plaintiff, a Georgia citizen, filed a wrongful foreclosure action against, among others, a non-diverse defendant, the removing defendant met the defendant’s burden of showing that there was no possibility that the plaintiff could establish a cause of action against the non-diverse defendant because, although it arguably could be held liable for a violation of Georgia foreclosure statutes as a result of acting as foreclosure counsel for the lender, the lender, through the lender’s merger predecessor, appeared in the public record before the foreclosure sale. Jackson v.

Bank of Am., NA, 578 Fed. Appx. 856, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16196 (11th Cir. 2014). RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 55 Am. Jur. 2d, Mortgages, §§ 89, 90. C.J.S. 59 C.J.S., Mortgages, §§ 110, 111.

ALR. Effect of purported subscribing witness’s denial or forgetfulness of signature by mark, 17 A.L.R. 1267.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2004–2004 · leading case: In Re Cooper, 317 B.R. 500 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2004).
In Re Cooper, 317 B.R. 500 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2004). “Ga.Code Ann. § 44-14-62. These rules leave no doubt that the correct street address is not a substitute for the legal description required by the statute.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.