From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCollum v. Pope

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jan 17, 1992
261 Ga. 835 (Ga. 1992)

Summary

In McCollum v. Pope, 261 Ga. 835, 411 S.E. 2d 874 (1992), this Court plainly determined that when the grantee in a security deed mails a notification of the sale under power correctly addressed to the grantor of the security deed in accordance with the provisions of OCGA § 44-14-162.2, the actual receipt, or want of receipt, by the grantor is immaterial to the right of the grantee to sale under power.

Summary of this case from McCallum v. Bank of Am. (In re McCallum)

Opinion

S91A1632, S91A1633.

DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1992. RECONSIDERATION DENIED FEBRUARY 5, 1992.

Sale under power. Cobb Superior Court. Before Judge White.

Schwall Ruff, Emory A. Schwall, Frederick B. Whittington III, Donald L. Mize, for appellants.

Jerome C. Ware, for appellees.


Upon the default by the grantor of a security deed, the grantee initiated a sale under power contained in the deed. It is undisputed that the grantee mailed a notification of the sale under power correctly addressed to the grantor in accordance with OCGA § 44-14-162.2. Under these circumstances, the actual receipt (or want of receipt) by the grantor of the notice of sale under power is immaterial to the right of the grantee to sale under power.

(a) Notice of the initiation of proceedings to exercise a power of sale in a mortgage, security deed, or other lien contract shall be given to the debtor by the secured creditor no later than 15 days before the date of the proposed foreclosure. Such notice shall be in writing and shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the property address or to such other address as the debtor may designate by written notice to the secured creditor. The notice required by this Code section shall be deemed given on the official postmark day.

(b) The notice required by subsection (a) of this Code section shall be given by mailing to the debtor a copy of the published legal advertisement or a copy of the notice of sale submitted to the publisher. [Emphasis supplied.]

Before the enactment of OCGA § 44-14-162.2 in 1981, foreclosure required only notice by publication. OCGA § 44-14-162. See Nat. Community Builders v. C S Nat. Bank, 232 Ga. 594 ( 207 S.E.2d 510) (1974) (foreclosure pursuant to realty foreclosure statutes does not violate procedural due process rights).

The judgment of the trial court to the contrary must be reversed.

Judgment reversed. Clarke, C. J., Bell, Hunt, Fletcher, JJ., and Judge John W. Sognier concur. Benham, J., disqualified.


DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1992 — RECONSIDERATION DENIED FEBRUARY 5, 1992.


Summaries of

McCollum v. Pope

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jan 17, 1992
261 Ga. 835 (Ga. 1992)

In McCollum v. Pope, 261 Ga. 835, 411 S.E. 2d 874 (1992), this Court plainly determined that when the grantee in a security deed mails a notification of the sale under power correctly addressed to the grantor of the security deed in accordance with the provisions of OCGA § 44-14-162.2, the actual receipt, or want of receipt, by the grantor is immaterial to the right of the grantee to sale under power.

Summary of this case from McCallum v. Bank of Am. (In re McCallum)

In McCollum v. Pope, 261 Ga. 835 (411 SE2d 874) (1992), this Court plainly determined that when the grantee in a security deed mails a notification of the sale under power correctly addressed to the grantor of the security deed in accordance with the provisions of OCGA § 44-14-162.2, the actual receipt, or want of receipt, by the grantor is immaterial to the right of the grantee to sale under power.

Summary of this case from Parks v. Bank of New York
Case details for

McCollum v. Pope

Case Details

Full title:McCOLLUM v. POPE et al. FIRST AMERICAN BANK OF GEORGIA, N.A. v. POPE et al

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Jan 17, 1992

Citations

261 Ga. 835 (Ga. 1992)
411 S.E.2d 874

Citing Cases

Zeller v. Home Fed

As discussed in Division 1, the trial court correctly determined that because Zeller failed to designate…

McCallum v. Bank of Am. (In re McCallum)

Debtor's Reply Brief, Doc. No. 24 p 5. This is immaterial to BOA's motion because Debtor has not denied that…