Brooks v. McCorkle
Decision Date | 05 March 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 69067,69067 |
Citation | 329 S.E.2d 214,174 Ga.App. 132 |
Parties | , 41 UCC Rep.Serv. 857 BROOKS v. McCORKLE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied
William S. Stone, Blakely, for appellant.
Adie N. Durden, Jr., Charles W. Hill, Albany, for appellee.
Defendant-appellant Brooks appeals from the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff-appellee Sandra McCorkle in an action to recover on a promissory note.
Sandra McCorkle is the wife of Dan McCorkle. Dan McCorkle and Brooks were apparently jointly engaged in house building and each owned fifty percent of the stock in a corporation they formed. Dan McCorkle agreed to sell his stock to Brooks for $16,500 and Brooks executed a promissory note for that amount, payable, at Dan McCorkle's request, to his wife, Sandra McCorkle. The note became due and after demand was made, Sandra commenced this action on the note. Brooks' answer admitted the execution of the note but denied that he was indebted to Sandra; alleged that Dan McCorkle was the real party in interest, not Sandra who held the note as trustee for Dan; and asserted that the note was void for lack of consideration and subject to certain set-offs of debts owed Brooks by Dan which were alleged in a counterclaim. Brooks and Sandra McCorkle both gave depositions, with Brooks' testimony supporting his allegations. Sandra testified that she was not involved in Dan's dealings with Brooks, that her husband had the note made payable to her in case something happened to him, and that it was her note as it was in her name. The trial court granted Sandra's motion for summary judgment and denied Brooks' motion to join Dan as a necessary party. On appeal Brooks asserts the trial court erred because Dan, not Sandra, was the real party in interest. Held:
There is no merit in appellant's assertion.
"
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jenkins v. Karlton
...on the note could not recover. See also Dominion Bank, N.A. v. Moore, 688 F.Supp. 1084, 1086 (W.D.Va.1988); Brooks v. McCorkle, 174 Ga.App. 132, 329 S.E.2d 214, 215 (1985); Davis v. Dennis, 448 S.W.2d 495, 497-98 Moreover, just as neither a provision for interest nor for collection fees, in......
- Roberson v. Tanner
-
Kothari v. Patel, No. A03A0286
...A promissory note is an unconditional contract to pay, and parol evidence cannot be admitted to alter its terms. Brooks v. McCorkle, 174 Ga.App. 132, 133, 329 S.E.2d 214 (1985). IDS argues that because Vijay, the maker, admitted execution, a prima facie case was proved and the burden was on......
-
Citizens & Southern Trust Co. (Georgia), N.A. v. Johnson
...parol evidence to establish a valid defense to appellants' prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Brooks v. McCorkle, 174 Ga.App. 132, 329 S.E.2d 214 (1985). Accordingly, the trial court also erred by not granting appellants' motion for summary judgment on the portions of J......