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 an excellent working relationship with a number of attorneys at the firm, all of whom I trust to handle our problems. Even at a generously negotiated rate, we pay the attorneys at Burr & Forman a slightly higher rate than we pay other attorneys for similar services. We are willing to pay that premium because of the firm’s competence in so many areas, whereas other smaller firms tend to specialize in areas and have weaknesses in others.”

    -Chambers 2012

  • “Gail Mills has the ability to find a solution for the tough problems that arise, and she does it with grace and charm.  As a client, we can rest easy knowing that Gail is more than capable to protect our interests.”

    -Anonymous

  • “He is great. He is not only bright, but has a good way of getting things done. Any time we have had a transaction and there was a disagreement, he is the best to work through. He has the magic touch, never gets mad, always gets the deal done.”

    -Chambers 2012

  • “He’s probably the best attorney I know – an excellent attorney. He is one of the few that understands business – a deal maker not a deal breaker. He grasps very readily the picture of what’s going on and he is a quick observer. He’s a lawyer with an understanding of business – a bit of a psychologist who understands what makes people tick. He is quick and efficient. The billing is always reasonable. We are very happy with him.”

    -Chambers 2012

  • “I have found them very responsive to our requests and requirements, and very knowledgeable of the relevant areas. They are conscious of cost containment and getting the job done. They don’t just churn paper and create billable hours. Everything they do is directed toward achieving our aims. They want us as the client to understand where things are and what our options are, and make sure we understand the consequences of all the options that are available to us. They let us pick door number one or door number two in the knowledge of what we’re leaving behind. They are able to resolve issues using common sense and reasonableness. We speak very highly of them.”

    -Chambers 2012