Citizens Bank, Vienna v. Bowen
Decision Date | 31 January 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 66848,66848 |
Citation | 315 S.E.2d 437,169 Ga.App. 896 |
Parties | CITIZENS BANK, VIENNA v. BOWEN et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
John C. Pridgen and Verlin L. Jones, Jr., Vienna, for appellant.
James W. Hurt and Thomas H. Hyman, Cordele, for appellees.
Citizens Bank, Vienna, Georgia (the Bank) sued Lamar Bowen, Jr. and his father, D.L. Bowen, on four promissory notes executed by Lamar and guaranteed by D.L. Bowen. The Bowens had obtained the Bank's permission to voluntarily liquidate farm equipment that secured the various notes each had executed in favor of the Bank. The sales proceeds from D.L. Bowen's collateral were sufficient to pay his notes, but Lamar Bowen's equipment did not sell for an amount sufficient to satisfy his notes. The Bank brought the instant action to recover the deficiency. D.L. Bowen defended on the ground that his signature on the guaranties held by the Bank was obtained by fraud. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the Bank against Lamar Bowen for the amount of the deficiency. The jury returned a verdict in favor of D.L. Bowen and the Bank appeals.
1. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence testimony of oral statements between the parties made prior to or contemporaneously with the signing of the guaranties of payment, which statements attempted to vary the terms of the written documents. Appellees contend that the purpose of the statements was not to contradict the terms of the written agreements but to show that the agreements were void because D.L. Bowen's signature on the guaranties was obtained by fraud. Hinson v. Hinson, 221 Ga. 291, 294(2), 144 S.E.2d 381 (1965); Johnson v. Sherrer, 197 Ga. 392, 403(8), 29 S.E.2d 581 (1944). Appellant argues, however, that appellees are precluded from their defense of fraud by the "read or perish" rule that Craft v. Drake, 244 Ga. 406, 408, 260 S.E.2d 475 (1979). Appellees argue that D.L. Bowen's admitted failure to read the guaranty instruments was excused by certain exceptions to the "read or perish" rule.
The Bank had permitted Lamar and D.L. Bowen to finance equipment purchases by using jointly owned farm equipment as collateral. This practice was criticized by FDIC bank examiners and the Bank asked the Bowens to come in in order to obtain cross-endorsements on their respective notes. The Bank also wanted D.L. Bowen to endorse Lamar Bowen's loans because Lamar's collateral was insufficient. The need for cross signatures was initially explained to the Bowens by a Bank employee, Middlebrooks, but they refused his request to sign the guaranties and asked to see Wiley, whom they knew. Wiley explained that the cross-signing was needed because the Bank was having problems with the FDIC. The Bowens then signed the guaranties.
D.L. Bowen testified at trial that "[f]or some reason or other," he did not see the heading, "Guaranty of Payment," on the documents he signed, surmising that the heading had been covered by an attachment dealing with credit life insurance, or that the papers had been doubled over.
Morrison v. Roberts, 195 Ga. 45(1), 23 S.E.2d 164 (1942). Ansley v. Forest Services, 135 Ga.App. 745, 748, 218 S.E.2d 914 (1975).
We have searched the record and found no evidence showing that D.L. Bowen was prevented from reading the documents he signed. While Bowen testified that the documents were covered up so that he could not see the words, "Guaranty of Payment," he testified repeatedly and consistently that he could have read the documents if he had so requested. Further, he stated that he could have moved any attachments covering up the documents in order to read what was beneath them, but did not do so. Even if Wiley was in a hurry to have the documents signed, there is nothing to show that this presented such an emergency as to prevent Bowen from reading the papers he signed. See Lewis v. Foy, 189 Ga. 596, 599, 6 S.E.2d 788 (1940); Morgan v. Denton, 28 Ga.App. 88, 110 S.E. 328 (1921). Nor did Bowen's desire not to cause "too much trouble" by taking the time to read the document excuse his failure to do so. Stoddard Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 122 Ga. 802, 803, 50 S.E. 915 (1905).
While fraud and reasonable diligence are normally questions for the jury, Maxey-Bosshardt Lumber Co. v. Maxwell, 127 Ga.App. 429, 431, 193 S.E.2d 885 (1972), absent any evidence showing D.L. Bowen was prevented from reading the contract by emergency, artifice or trick of appellant, we must hold as a matter of law that there was no fraud. See B.E. Robuck, Inc. v. Walker, 212 Ga. 621, 94 S.E.2d 696 (1956); Lewis v. Foy, supra; Chicago Bldg., etc., Co. v. Summerour, 101 Ga. 820, 821(1), 29 S.E. 291 (1897); Robi v. Goldstein, 100 Ga.App. 606, 112 S.E.2d 165 (1959); Williamson v. Read Phosphate Co., 40 Ga.App. 219, 221(2), 149 S.E. 175 (1929); Ward v. Colt Co., 28 Ga.App. 24(2), 109 S.E. 921 (1921).
Further, there was insufficient evidence to authorize the jury to find that D.L. Bowen and Wiley shared a confidential relationship which would excuse Bowen's failure to read what he signed on the basis of Wiley's representations. That Bowen reposed trust and confidence in Wiley does not create a confidential relationship. Dover v. Burns, 186 Ga. 19, 26, 196 S.E....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Legacy Acad., Inc. v. Mamilove, LLC
...they presented no evidence that the Turners said or did anything that prevented them from reading the agreement before they signed it. Citizens Bank, Vienna v. Bowen, 169 Ga.App. 896, 897(1), 315 S.E.2d 437 (1984) (the fact that one party was in a "hurry" to have the agreements signed does ......
-
In re Galbreath, Bankruptcy No. 99-60517.
...the parties have made an agreement respecting the application of payments, it must be observed," Vienna Citizens Bank v. Bowen, 169 Ga.App. 896, 899, 315 S.E.2d 437, 440 (1984); see also Redfearn v. C. & S. Nat'l Bank, 122 Ga.App. 282, 287, 176 S.E.2d 627, 631 (1970) (holding parol evidence......
-
Harper v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
...against plaintiff who was unable to read it because of her age, cataracts, and failing eyesight); Citizens Bank, Vienna v. Bowen, 169 Ga.App. 896, 897, 315 S.E.2d 437 (1984) (determining that the plaintiff was not prevented from reading the documents he signed even though he alleged that th......
-
Delta Diversified, Inc. v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank
...cross-appellees have no basis on which to assert reasonable reliance on the alleged misrepresentations. See Citizens Bank v. Bowen, 169 Ga.App. 896, 315 S.E.2d 437 (1984). Barbre and Chance as officers of Delta had "an equal, if not greater opportunity" to know whether CSFC was likely to su......