McHaffie v. Decatur Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n, A94A0913
| Decision Date | 04 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A94A0913,A94A0913 |
| Citation | 448 S.E.2d 36,214 Ga.App. 368 |
| Parties | McHAFFIE v. DECATUR FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Cecil E. McHaffie, pro se.
McCurdy & Candler, Dana B. Miles, Donald C. Suessmith, Jr., Decatur, Webb, Tanner & Powell, Ralph L. Taylor III, Steven A. Pickens, Lawrenceville, for appellees.
HAROLD R. BANKE, Senior Appellate Judge.
The appellant, a pro se litigant, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of the appellee, Brand Banking Company ("Brand Banking"), in an interpleader action brought by the appellee, Decatur Federal Savings and Loan Association ("Decatur Federal").
Exercising its power of foreclosure and sale with respect to real property owned by the appellant, Decatur Federal sold the property to Brand Banking for the sum of $52,742.33. The purchase price exceeded the appellant's indebtedness to Decatur Federal by $23,601.33. To identify who was entitled to the excess funds, Decatur Federal conducted a title examination of the property which revealed that Brand Banking held a second priority deed to secure debt and that the appellee, Bramblett Drywall Supply, held a judgment lien against the appellant. Faced with three potential claims to the funds, Decatur Federal paid the funds into the registry of the court and filed a complaint for interpleader.
The matter was tried before the trial court without a jury. The appellant was present at trial and participated in the proceedings but did not present any evidence. The uncontroverted evidence shows that Brand Banking held a properly recorded deed to secure debt on the property which was second in priority to Decatur Federal's interest and that the appellant was indebted to Brand Banking in the sum of $25,645.46 on the promissory note secured by Brand Banking's deed to secure debt. Thus, the excess proceeds were awarded to Brand Banking, and this appeal followed.
On appeal, the appellant has failed to comply with several Court of Appeals Rules, including Rule 27, Rule 15(a), and Rule 15(c). Instead, the appellant's "brief" includes "enumerations of error" which consist of nine factual allegations, none of which identify error committed by the trial court. This is followed by a "statement of the issues" in which all nine statements are accompanied by citations of authority, but they are totally unrelated to the enumerations of error and irrelevant to the matters at issue in the trial.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Financial Group, Ltd. v. Standard Chartered Bank
...the enumerated errors discussed. 1 Finch v. Brown, 216 Ga.App. 451, 452, 454 S.E.2d 807 (1995); McHaffie v. Decatur Federal Sav., etc., Assn., 214 Ga.App. 368, 369, 448 S.E.2d 36 (1994). 2. Viewed under the standard of Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474 (1991), the facts ne......
-
Finch v. Brown, A94A2527
...[Finch] still has the burden of showing error affirmatively by the record. (Cit.)' [Cit.]" McHaffie v. Decatur Fed. Savings, etc., Assn., 214 Ga.App. 368, 369, 448 S.E.2d 36 (1994). 1. In two enumerations of error, Finch asserts the trial court erred in limiting the testimony of certain wit......
-
Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. DeMoonie
...the enumerated errors discussed. 2 Finch v. Brown, 216 Ga.App. 451, 452, 454 S.E.2d 807 (1995); McHaffie v. Decatur Fed. Sav., etc., Ass'n., 214 Ga.App. 368, 369, 448 S.E.2d 36 (1994). 2. Grange complains of the denial of its motion for summary judgment on the issues of the residency and va......
-
Henry v. Medical Center, Inc.
...Gale v. Obstetrics & Gynecology of Atlanta, 213 Ga.App. 614, 615(2), 445 S.E.2d 366 (1994). See McHaffie v. Decatur Fed. Savings and Loan Assn., 214 Ga.App. 368, 369, 448 S.E.2d 36 (1994). 2. Considering the record, as we are bound to do, it reflects that suit was filed on September 10, 199......