Mansell v. Pappas
| Decision Date | 14 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 60457,60457 |
| Citation | 156 Ga.App. 272,274 S.E.2d 588 |
| Parties | MANSELL v. PAPPAS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Wellborn R. Ellis, Atlanta, for appellant.
D. W. Rolader, David Grissette, Larry S. Bryant, Atlanta, for appellees.
This is an appeal from summary judgments.
Defendant-appellant Mansell was the owner of real property which he originally sold to plaintiff-appellee Pappas, taking as security for the balance of the purchase price a promissory note and a deed to secure debt from Pappas. Pappas defaulted on the note. Mansell commenced foreclosure proceedings, and regained title to the property by buying it in at the foreclosure sale. Mansell then leased the property to Pappas with an option to purchase for $61,000. Thereafter, Mansell received an offer to purchase the property for $68,000 from the remaining party to this suit, defendant-appellee Benson Chevrolet Company, Inc. After obtaining oral assurances from Pappas that he would not exercise the option, Mansell agreed to sell the property to Benson. Benson was aware of Pappas' leasehold but the evidence is in conflict on whether Benson had knowledge of Pappas' unrecorded option to purchase. The sale was consummated, Mansell conveyed the property to Benson by warranty deed and transferred his lease with Pappas to Benson. Pappas continued as lessee under Benson as lessor for some months when Pappas informed Benson that he was exercising the option to purchase. When Benson refused to convey to Pappas, Pappas commenced this action against Benson and Mansell for specific performance and damages. Mansell counterclaimed against Pappas to recover alleged indebtedness of Pappas to him arising from the foreclosure and Benson cross claimed against Mansell for breach of the covenant of warranty in the deed conveying the property to Benson. Pappas received summary judgment against Benson on the issue of specific performance and this judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia on July 1, 1980 (No. 36081), without opinion.
Appellant Mansell enumerates as error the following actions by the trial court: (1) Grant of partial summary judgment to Benson on Mansell's liability for breach of the covenant of warranty; (2) Denial of Mansell's motion for summary judgment on Pappas' claims for damages against Mansell; (3) Denial of Mansell's motion to strike certain allegations in Pappas' complaint against Mansell for damages; and (4) Grant of summary judgment to Pappas on Mansell's counterclaim against Pappas for indebtedness arising from the foreclosure of Pappas' former title to the property. Held :
1. Appellant's second and third enumerations were abandoned orally by counsel when the case was argued.
2. The trial court did not err in granting Benson partial summary judgment on its cross claim against Mansell on the issue of his liability to Benson for breach of the covenant of warranty in the deed.
In the deed conveying the property to Benson, Mansell agreed to warrant and forever defend Benson's right and title to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mansell v. Benson Chevrolet Co., Inc.
...Atlanta, for appellees. SHULMAN, Chief Judge. The facts of this case are contained in this court's opinion in Mansell v. Pappas, 156 Ga.App. 272, 274 S.E.2d 588 (1980). The present appeal arises from a six-day trial which resulted in jury verdicts against appellant Mansell and in favor of a......
-
McClure v. Turner, 65604
...price under OCGA § 44-5-36 (Code Ann. § 29-202) for that part of the land lost due to the defect in title. Accord Mansell v. Pappas, 156 Ga.App. 272(2), 274 S.E.2d 588 (1980); Woodstock Village v. Fowler, 154 Ga.App. 82(1), 267 S.E.2d 558 (1980); Lawton v. Byck, 217 Ga. 676(2), 124 S.E.2d 3......
-
Hastings v. Courtland, A90A1302
...in Mrs. James and that Mrs. Pickert's warranty of title was, therefore, breached at the time of her conveyance. Mansell v. Pappas, 156 Ga.App. 272, 273(2), 274 S.E.2d 588 (1980). Compare Finn v. Lifsey, 169 Ga. 599, 150 S.E. 908 (1929). Contrary to appellants' assertions on appeal, any tran......