Chelena v. Georgia Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n

Decision Date22 October 1986
Docket NumberNo. 43730,43730
CitationChelena v. Georgia Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 349 S.E.2d 180, 256 Ga. 336 (Ga. 1986)
PartiesCHELENA v. GEORGIA FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

George P. Graves, Decatur, for Vincent Chalena et al.

Steven F. Unti, Gambrell, Clarke, Anderson & Stolz, Atlanta, for Georgia Federal Sav. & Loan Assn.

GREGORY, Justice.

The Chelena brothers sued Georgia Federal Savings & Loan Association (Georgia Federal) seeking a constructive trust and damages for alleged mishandling of a trust in their name. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Georgia Federal. We affirm.

Marie and Carl Chelena were divorced in 1969. Mrs. Chelena was awarded custody of their five sons and the title to the family home, which she was to hold in trust for the children. On May 21, 1973, the court authorized Mrs. Chelena to sell the house and place the proceeds in a trust account in a federally insured savings and loan association. The court order stated encroachment on the corpus by the trustee could be made for necessary support or maintenance, but only after petitioning the court for permission.

With the sale proceeds, Mrs. Chelena opened two revocable trust savings accounts of $5,000 each with Georgia Federal. The trust accounts named Mrs. Chelena as trustee. The terms allowed Mrs. Chelena to borrow against the trust funds and pledge them as collateral. The terms also directed Georgia Federal to act pursuant to Mrs. Chelena's signature in any manner consistent with the deposits.

Three Georgia Federal employees stated in affidavits that they were not made aware of any court order having to do with the trust accounts. In a deposition, Mrs. Chelena admitted she never presented Georgia Federal with copies of any court orders, but stated she discussed the court order with a representative when she opened the accounts. In 1973, Mrs. Chelena obtained two $3,000 savings account loans from Georgia Federal by pledging the trust certificates as collateral. The loans were eventually paid with money from the trust accounts. All this was accomplished without court permission.

In August 1979, the five Chelena sons brought suit against Georgia Federal seeking to recover the funds taken from the trust accounts for the loans. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Georgia Federal and denied summary judgment to the Chelenas. The Chelenas contend it was error to grant summary judgment to Georgia Federal because there is a disputed issue of fact as to whether Georgia Federal had knowledge of the court order prohibiting encroachment on the corpus of the trust without prior court approval.

This case is controlled by OCGA § 7-1-790 governing deposits by fiduciaries in building and loan associations and savings and loan associations. It provides:

"A building and loan association or a savings and loan association may receive deposits in the name of an administrator, executor,...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
10 cases
  • Trust Co. Bank of Augusta N.A. v. Henderson
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • December 4, 1987
    ...not make an issue of fact for the jury. See Citizens Bank of Forsyth v. Middlebrooks, 209 Ga. 330, 72 S.E.2d 298; Chelena v. Ga. Fed., etc., Assn., 256 Ga. 336, 349 S.E.2d 180; Bank South v. Grand Lodge, etc., for Ga., 174 Ga.App. 777, 331 S.E.2d 629; and National Bank of Ga. v. Weiner, 180......
  • Parker v. Mooneyham
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • October 22, 1986
    ... ... No. 43707 ... Supreme Court of Georgia ... Oct. 22, 1986 ...         [256 Ga ... ...
  • Blair v. Georgia Baptist Children's Home & Family Ministries, Inc., s. 77628
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 29, 1988
    ...139 (1), 342 S.E.2d 484; Southern Trust Ins. Co. v. Braner, 169 Ga.App. 567, 569, 314 S.E.2d 241; see also Chelena v. Ga. Fed. etc., Assn., 256 Ga. 336, 337, 349 S.E.2d 180. Where the material facts are undisputed, as here, and there remains no genuine issue as to any material fact, the mov......
  • Grogan v. Lanier Bank & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • December 4, 1995
    ...use of such funds is inappropriate. In the absence of any authority to that effect, we decline to do so. See Chelena v. Ga. Fed. Savings, etc., 256 Ga. 336, 349 S.E.2d 180 (1986); Trust Co. of Ga. v. Nationwide Moving, etc., Co., 235 Ga. 229, 219 S.E.2d 162 2. Likewise, the children argue t......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Restrictions on Post-employment Competition by an Executive Under Georgia Law - Steven E. Harbour
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 54-3, March 2003
    • Invalid date
    ...71, 252 S.E.2d at 494. 64. Nat'l Settlement Assocs. of Ga. v. Creel, 256 Ga. 329, 330-32, 349 S.E.2d 177, 17980 (1986). 65. Id. at 332, 349 S.E.2d at 180. National Settlement was in the business of marketing "lump sum and structured settlement[s]." Id. at 330, 349 S.E.2d at 178. While the b......