448 S.E.2d 248 (Ga.App. 1994), A94A0923, Krell v. National Mortg. Corp.

Docket Nº:A94A0923.
Citation:448 S.E.2d 248, 214 Ga.App. 503
Opinion Judge:ANDREWS, Judge
Party Name:KRELL v. NATIONAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION.
Attorney:Mark L. Krell, pro se., Webb, Tanner & Powell, Anthony O.L. Powell, R. Jack Wilson, Steven A. Pickens, Lawrenceville, for appellee. Mark L. Krell, pro se. Webb, Tanner & Powell, Anthony O. L. Powell, R. Jack Wilson, Steven A. Pickens, for appellee.
Judge Panel:BEASLEY, P.J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.
Case Date:August 15, 1994
Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 248

448 S.E.2d 248 (Ga.App. 1994)

214 Ga.App. 503

KRELL

v.

NATIONAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION.

No. A94A0923.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

August 15, 1994

Reconsideration Denied Aug. 25, 1994.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 19, 1995.

Mark L. Krell, pro se.

Webb, Tanner & Powell, Anthony O.L. Powell, R. Jack Wilson, Steven A. Pickens, Lawrenceville, for appellee.

ANDREWS, Judge.

National Mortgage Corporation (National) held mortgages over Krell's residence and a separate rental property owned by Krell. Both mortgages were insured by the United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) under the National Housing Act (12 USC § 1701 et seq.). See 12 USC § 1709.

Krell defaulted on both mortgages by failing to make timely monthly payments. National refused to accept Krell's tender of partial payment on amounts due, insisting that payment be made on each mortgage for the full amount of the monthly payments due plus late charges. The mortgages continued in default without payments for approximately one year. After National instituted foreclosure proceedings, Krell filed for protection under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Krell subsequently made lump sum full payments bringing both mortgages current and stopping the foreclosure [214 Ga.App. 504] proceedings.

Krell instituted two actions against National (one for each mortgage) on the basis that National's refusal to accept partial payments violated HUD regulations controlling mortgage servicing responsibilities for federally insured mortgages (see 24 CFR § 203.500 et seq.) and was an unfair or deceptive practice in the conduct of consumer transactions in violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (Georgia Act) (OCGA § 10-1-390 et

Page 249

seq.) or the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 (Tennessee Act) (Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-101 et seq.). 1 Krell appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of National in both actions.

For purposes of reviewing the grant of summary judgment, we will assume, without deciding, that National violated HUD regulations promulgated pursuant to the National Housing Act requiring acceptance of partial payments by a mortgagor. See 24 CFR § 203.556. Nevertheless, we conclude that "the National Housing Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder deal only with the regulations between the mortgagee and the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP