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 great. The most important thing I think is judgment, whether more aggressive or more conservative than a firm’s first inclination. Tom’s got a great sense of discretion and judgment and he clearly knows the topic area very well. We never have an issue with us having to prompt ‘try this theory’. He’s smart and very pleasant, responsive as anything.”

    -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

  • “Scott helped us through a complex corporate issue in a very straightforward, competent and knowledgeable manner. His correspondence was timely and professional. I recommend his work highly.”

    -Scott Weaver

  • “This firm is one, if not the top firm in the Southeast. I steer all my work to Burr & Forman exclusively. I have used other attorneys on deals where conflicts may arise and those are good firms, but I still go back to Burr time and again.”

    - Chambers 2012

  • “Scott generously provided advice and assistance to our small startup. He was responsive to our needs and tolerant of adjustments we requested throughout the development of our operating agreement. We’re probably one of Scott’s smallest clients, but he offered our startup his full attention and consideration as if we were one of his largest. We’re grateful for his help.”

    -Sam Pugh