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

  • "Erich is extremely efficient and responsive which results in a high level of trust in our relationship."

    -Anonymous

  • “Ed is excellent. He is very responsive and provides us with direct and concise legal opinions. His business understanding combined with his legal skills are invaluable to us. He runs a very professional practice. His personal touch is complimented by his very able legal assistant Denease Mallett. The firm is well respected.”

    -Chambers 2012

  • “I have always been impressed by Jack. He has a quality that many lawyers that I have worked with in the past do not possess. He sees the matters from a business perspective while incorporating his legal skills in the matter. Additionally, he is always very responsive to any question or problem we have, and I believe that he truly cares about our firm’s success.”

    -Chambers 2012

  • “She has handled as many or more sophisticated transactions as anyone in the state."

    -Chambers 2012

  • “They handle most of the deals in a timely fashion…Their execution was outstanding...Everything is done on time, there is no hint of under-staffing.”

    -Chambers 2012