Burr Alert: Georgia Foreclosure Law in the Wake of Recent Decisions on Residential Mortgage Loans

December 27, 2012

Thousands of wrongful foreclosure lawsuits are filed each year in Georgia against banks, lenders, servicers, foreclosure firms, and other entities involved in the non-judicial foreclosure process for residential mortgage loans.

There has been recent upheaval in Georgia foreclosure law resulting from several key cases decided in 2012. We do not summarize the cases here, but rather seek to analyze their decisions’ impact on Georgia’s non-judicial foreclosure process while we await the Georgia Supreme Court’s response.

Reese v. Provident Funding Associates, LLP, 730 S.E.2d 551, 317 Ga. App. 353 (Ga. Ct. App. July 12, 2012)

In a sharply-divided decision, the majority held, as a matter of first impression, that Georgia’s foreclosure notice statute, O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2(a), requires the person or entity conducting a non-judicial foreclosure of a residential mortgage loan to provide the borrower/debtor with a written notice of the foreclosure sale that discloses not only "the name, address, and telephone number of the individual or entity who shall have full authority to negotiate, amend, and modify all terms of the mortgage with the debtor" (the language that appears in the statute), but also the identity of the "secured creditor" (not required by the statutory language, but which the majority inferred based on legislative intent). The majority further found that the failure to identify the "secured creditor" in the foreclosure notice renders the notice, and any subsequent foreclosure sale, invalid as a matter of law. The dissenting judges in Reese found that the majority’s holding "amount[ed] to a judicial rewriting of [O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2(a)]" to mean that the notice must disclose not only the identity of the person identified in the text of the statute, but the identity of the secured creditor as well.

To read more about this topic, please see full article below

Download PDF



Legal Disclaimer:
No representation is made that the quality of services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Featured Attorneys

send article

TESTIMONIALS

  • “I have had the pleasure of working with Jay Price since 1997.  Over the years, he has provided outstanding representation for the banks I have worked for and continues to make the loan closing process a good experience for both the bank and our borrowers.  Even with the growth of Jay’s practice over the years, he always makes me feel as if I am his only client and always provides me top notch service.”

    -Anonymous

  • “Callie is thorough, efficient and dependable.  She explains the details of contract law in terms that we can understand allowing us to make the business decisions that are essential for our success.  During contract negotiations with our customers, Callie is always courteous while maintaining the proficiency and firmness required to effectively represent the interests of American.”

    -Jon Noland, Sales Manager, Steel Pipe Division, American Cast Iron Pipe Company

  • “Ed Snow is ‘sensitive to our timing and fee requirements’ and ‘his work has a tangible effect on our place in the market.”

    -Chamber's USA America's Leading Lawyers for Business

  • "Erich has a keen legal mind such that he is able to easily translate complex legal issues into simple layman's terms.  I view him as a trusted counsel who is also very responsive and easy to work with.  I highly recommend him."

    -Anonymous

  • "Peter's professionalism, honesty and integrity are beyond reproach."

    -Dave Hamilla, President, IntaMation Engineering Services, Inc.