Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Ga. L. 1919, p. 135, art. 13, § 5; Code 1933, §§ 13-1406, 13-1407; Code 1933, § 41A-2407, enacted by Ga. L. 1974, p. 705, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, p. 970, § 6; Ga. L. 2007, p. 502, § 10/SB 70.)
- Clear purpose of O.C.G.A. § 7-1-536 is to eliminate the necessity of a formal transfer or assignment of the property of the constituent bank to the consolidated bank. State Bank & Trust Co. v. Newby, 170 Ga. App. 865, 318 S.E.2d 738 (1984).
Because creditor bank's claims, including the creditor's claim for fraud against the debtor, became claims of the successor bank by operation of merger between banks under the National Banking Act and Georgia law regarding merger of banks and corporations, the successor bank had standing to bring a non-dischargeability action. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lovett (In re Lovett), 560 Bankr. 372 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2016).
- Bank into which judgment creditor bank had merged did not have to produce evidence of assignment of judgment prior to instituting garnishment proceeding in that bank's name. State Bank & Trust Co. v. Newby, 170 Ga. App. 865, 318 S.E.2d 738 (1984).
- When a utility corporation, as settlor, pursuant to former § 53-12-31 created an express trust, the purpose being to secure the corporation's obligation to furnish water and sewerage services to the properties located in a subdivision, and the bank named as trustee merged with another bank under the authority of former §§ 13-1406 and 13-1407, the second bank succeeded by operation of law to the trusteeship upon the merger with the first bank. Smith v. Hawks, 182 Ga. App. 379, 355 S.E.2d 669 (1987).
- In a suit brought by mortgagors against the mortgagor bank that was taken over by a successor bank, the appellate court erred in dismissing the successor bank's appeal under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-25 for lack of standing based on the trial court's failure to add or substitute it as the defendant because the two corporations were deemed the same entity under federal and state law by virtue of their merger; thus, the claims originally filed by and against the mortgagee bank could continue. Nat'l City Mortg. Co. v. Tidwell, 293 Ga. 697, 749 S.E.2d 730 (2013).
Cited in Georgia R.R. Bank & Trust Co. v. McCullough, 241 Ga. 456, 246 S.E.2d 313 (1978).
- 10 Am. Jur. 2d, Banks and Financial Institutions, § 234.
- 9 C.J.S., Banks and Banking, §§ 159 et seq., 670.
- Liability of guarantor of or surety for bank deposit as affected by reorganization, merger, or consolidation of bank, 78 A.L.R. 381.
Total Results: 1
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2013-10-07
Citation: 293 Ga. 697, 749 S.E.2d 730, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 3045, 2013 WL 5508677, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 781
Snippet: OCGA § 14-2-1106 (a) (2)-(4); see also OCGA § 7-1-536 (f) (“Any claim existing or action pending by or