Premium Funding Solutions, LLC v. Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless, Inc.

• Decision Date: 10 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. A15A1399.,A15A1399.
• Parties: PREMIUM FUNDING SOLUTIONS, LLC v. METRO ATLANTA TASK FORCE FOR the HOMELESS, INC.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

333 Ga.App. 718
776 S.E.2d 504

PREMIUM FUNDING SOLUTIONS, LLC
v.
METRO ATLANTA TASK FORCE FOR the HOMELESS, INC.

No. A15A1399.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Aug. 10, 2015.

776 S.E.2d 505

David Jon Maher, for Appellant.

Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, Steven Gordon Hall, Atlanta, Robert G. Brazier, for Appellee.

Opinion

MILLER, Judge.

333 Ga.App. 718

The parties to this action, as well as parties in related suits, have been litigating questions of title, right to possession, and rent due on the real property located at the corner of Peachtree and Pine Streets in Atlanta (hereinafter the “Property”) for several years. At least four appeals and five cross-appeals involving the Property are currently pending in the Supreme Court of Georgia (hereinafter the “Related Actions”).¹

333 Ga.App. 719

The present action arose when Premium Funding Solutions, LLC filed a dispossessory complaint against the Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless, Inc. (“MATF”) MATF filed a motion to dismiss and plea in abatement, pursuant to OCGA § 9–2–44, contending that this case involves the same parties, the same real property and substantially the same questions as to possession and title to land that are present in the Related Actions which were then pending in the trial court and are now pending on appeal in the Supreme Court of Georgia. Following a hearing, the trial court granted MATF's plea in abatement and stayed this case pending final resolution of the Related Actions. The trial court found that the Related Actions and this case concern the same parties and ownership of the same land, i.e., the Property.

Premium Funding appeals, contending that (1) OCGA § 9–2–44's prior pending action rule is inapplicable because the same causes of action are not at issue in this case and the Related Actions and (2) that the trial court erred in not ordering MATF to pay rent into the court registry. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

“When, as here, a question of law is at issue we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling and apply a de novo standard of review.”

776 S.E.2d 506

(Citation omitted.) Artson, LLC v. Hudson, 322 Ga.App. 859, 860, 747 S.E.2d 68 (2013).

The record shows that MATF acquired the Property in 1997, and four years later borrowed $900,000 in order to make improvements. The loans were secured by security deeds on the Property. MATF subsequently entered into forbearance and subordination agreements with the lenders and their successors-in-interest who held security interests in the Property.

In January 2010, a Nevada entity known as Ichthus Community Trust purchased MATF's loans and security deeds with money borrowed from Premium Funding. Ichthus initiated foreclosure proceedings and, on May 4, 2010, purchased the Property at the foreclosure sale as the sole bidder.

In May 2010, following the foreclosure sale, Ichthus

filed an action in superior court for temporary and permanent injunctive relief against the Task Force, pertinently alleging that Ichthus owned a security interest in and had foreclosed on the [P]roperty occupied by the shelter and that

333 Ga.App. 720

[MATF] was wrongfully occupying and denying it access to the [P]roperty.... Ichthus also filed a dispossessory action in magistrate court against [MATF], but in June 2010, that action was stayed, transferred and consolidated with the injunction action, with Ichthus reserving the right to move forward with the dispossessory claim and [MATF] having the right to respond to that claim. In November 2010, Ichthus dismissed the dispossessory action without prejudice, stating that it had been consolidated with the superior court action.

Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless, Inc. v. Premium Funding Solutions, 321 Ga.App. 100, ...