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


  • “George is good at everything as a specialist in those areas. He isn’t frightened by going where no-one has gone before and is very solution-oriented. He can lay out diagrams/menus/ procedures to follow and it works.”

    -Chambers 2012

  • “She has impressed me.”

    -Chambers 2012

  • "Like any commercial litigation practice, it takes a while to get completely up to speed on how a client's corporation works. Once the understanding was there, Burr & Forman put their head down and worked very hard for excellent results."

    -Best Lawyers 2012

  • “A litigator in the real estate department. I am very pleased with his style, and his attention to detail is quite remarkable.”

    -Chambers 2012

  • “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