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

  • “He is very responsive and very good at what he does. He is a conscientious and good advocate. I’d recommend him.”

    -Chambers 2012

  • “Our firm has used Burr & Forman, and particularly Logan Hinkle, for our retirement plan and many employment law issues over the years.  I have always found their entire staff of lawyers, paralegals and assistants to be knowledgeable and just as importantly prompt in their response to our questions or concerns.  They have always kept us abreast of changes in the law and suggest changes that we should make in our employment practices, or our retirement plan, to keep current and compliant.  Our relationship has always been professional but at the same time very cordial and respectful.  Our association with Logan and his partners, associates and colleagues has been outstanding.”

    -John D. Humber, Tuscaloosa Radiology

  • “He is an excellent attorney, a very good litigator. He has a very good and calm demeanor and doesn’t get wild. He keeps his cool and continues to pile on. He is a good planner in terms of strategy."

    -Chambers 2012

  • "We have had very positive experiences with them. I tend to think very well of the firm. They have been very good: I always feel like I'm getting extra support because the case has been handled efficiently."

    -Chambers 2013

  • “We think they are really excellent. Responsiveness is extremely important to me. I’m very demanding, I have to be, and I make that crystal clear to who I work with because I’d go elsewhere otherwise. I need proper, quick response times, not just within 24 hours. Our commercial needs are very much taken into account. They are extremely aware of business practicalities as well as legal technicalities. They provide excellent value. They are flexible and we’ve been happy. We are really very pleased.”

    -Chambers 2012