Alexander v. Wachovia Bank
| Citation | 700 S.E.2d 640,305 Ga.App. 641 |
| Decision Date | 20 August 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. A10A1517.,A10A1517. |
| Parties | ALEXANDER v. WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Christine H. Alexander, pro se.
Jones, Morrison & Womack, Lewis N. Jones, Atlanta, for appellee.
BLACKBURN, Senior Appellate Judge.
Christine H. Alexander appeals from the trial court's grant of judgment on the pleadings to Wachovia Bank, National Association (“Wachovia”) in a suit brought by Wachovia to recover amounts allegedly owed by Alexander under the terms of a promissory note. Because Alexander's pleadings disputed the amounts that Wachovia alleged were owed under the note, and because Wachovia failed to offer any proof as to those amounts, we vacate the order of judgment and remand the case for a determination of Wachovia's damages.
“On appeal, we review de novo the trial court's decision on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and we construe the [pleadings] in a light most favorable to the appellant, drawing all reasonable inferences in [her] favor.” (Punctuation omitted.) Hewell v. Walton County. 1 “[A]ll well-pleaded material allegations of the opposing party's pleading are to be taken as true, and all allegations of the moving party which have been denied are taken as false.” (Punctuation omitted.) Rolling Pin Kitchen Emporium v. Kaas. 2 So viewed, the record shows that in September 2004, Alexander executed a promissory note in favor of Wachovia in the principal amount of $45,938.50, with an annual interest rate of 7.04%. The loan was secured by a second lien on certain real property owned by Alexander, and was to be repaid in 360 monthly installments of $307.95. At some unspecified point in time between September 2004 and August 2009, Alexander defaulted on the note. Wachovia then initiated the current action.
Wachovia attached a copy of the promissory note to its complaint and asserted that, under the terms of the same, Alexander owed it $45,580.60 in principal, $3,244.04 in interest, and $4,907.47 in attorney fees. Acting pro se, Alexander filed an answer in which she did not deny her liability on the note, but disputed the amounts that Wachovia alleged were owed thereunder. Specifically, Alexander asserted that the property securing the note had been surrendered for foreclosure in November 2007, and that she believed that at least some, if not all, of the debt under the promissory note had been satisfied by proceeds from the foreclosure sale.
Wachovia moved for judgment on the pleadings, based on the fact that Alexander's answer did not deny liability. Alexander filed a response in which she again disputed the amounts Wachovia alleged were owed under the promissory note, stating “I have not denied the debt, but do not agree with the amount of debt [claimed by Wachovia].” The trial court granted Wachovia's motion and entered an order of judgment against Alexander and in favor of Wachovia for $53,732.19 (the entire amount requested in Wachovia's complaint), plus costs. Alexander now appeals from that order.
“In an action on a promissory note, a movant may establish a prima facie right to judgment as a matter of law [on the issue of liability] by producing the promissory note and showing that it was executed.” Vandegriff v. Hamilton. 3 To be entitled to judgment on the pleadings on the issue of damages, however, a movant must show either liquidated damages or evidence demonstrating the method by which it calculated the specific damages sought. Morgan v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. 4 See also Tucker Nursing Center v. Mosby 5 (“[w]here a party sues for damages, he has the burden of proof of showing the amount of loss in a manner in which ... the trial judge ... can calculate the amount of the loss with a reasonable degree of certainty”) (punctuation omitted).
Although Alexander did not deny liability, she did dispute the amounts Wachovia claimed were owed under the note and, in response, “Wachovia offered no testimony or any documentation explaining its method of calculating the specific amounts sought[, such as] evidence of [Alexander's] account...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ware v. Multibank 2009-1 Res-Adc Venture, LLC.
...producing the promissory note and showing that it was executed.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Alexander v. Wachovia Bank, Nat. Assn., 305 Ga.App. 641, 642, 700 S.E.2d 640 (2010). Because Multibank has presented each of the three Notes it has sued on and shown that they were executed ......
-
Capital City Developers, LLC v. Bank of N. Ga.
...562, 711 S.E.2d 80 (2011). 4. In a deposition, one of the guarantors, Pounders, acknowledged that Capital City did not fully pay its loans. 5.Alexander v. Wachovia Bank, Nat. Assn., 305 Ga.App. 641, 642, 700 S.E.2d 640 (2010). 6. (Emphasis in original.) Shropshire, supra at 315(3), 724 S.E.......
-
Shoenthal v. Shoenthal, A16A0398
...in the light most favorable to the appellants, drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor. Alexander v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. , 305 Ga.App. 641, 641, 700 S.E.2d 640 (2010). All allegations of the moving party that have been denied are taken as false, while all well-pleaded material alle......
-
Synovus Bank v. Huffer
...was executed." Ware v. Mutlibank 2009-1-RES-ADC Venture, LLC, 758 S.E.2d 145, 150 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014); Alexander v. Wachovia Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 700 S.E.2d 640, 642 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Vandegriff v. Hamilton, 519 S.E.2d 702, 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)). Once this prima facie case is est......