Roberts v. Collins
Decision Date | 01 April 1991 |
Docket Number | No. A91A0111,A91A0111 |
Citation | 405 S.E.2d 508,199 Ga.App. 614 |
Parties | ROBERTS v. COLLINS. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Harold A. Miller, III, Decatur, for appellant.
Lynch & Powell, Gene E. Massafra, Decatur, for appellee.
Lois T. Collins (plaintiff) filed a dispossessory action against Virginia B. Roberts (defendant) and Bobby Roberts, alleging that defendant and Bobby Roberts are tenants at sufferance at 702 Tahoe Circle ("the premises"). A default judgment was entered against Bobby Roberts because he failed to answer the dispossessory complaint. However, defendant answered and denied that she is a tenant at sufferance and alleged that plaintiff obtained title to the premises through "fraudulent conduct creating the deeds to secure debt that were the basis of a foreclosure action by plaintiff and [that said] foreclosure ... is fraudulent." The case was tried before the trial court, without a jury, and the trial court awarded plaintiff a writ of possession. Defendant appeals. Held:
1. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's appeal and motion for imposition of sanctions are hereby denied.
2. Defendant first contends the trial court erred in granting plaintiff's motion in limine, excluding evidence of the alleged fraudulent manner in which plaintiff procured title to the premises. This contention is without merit.
" Cotton v. Fed. Land Bank etc., 171 Ga.App. 360(1), 361, 320 S.E.2d 235. The trial court did not err in granting plaintiff's motion in limine.
3. Defendant next contends the trial court erred in failing to continue the dispossessory action until defendant's action to set aside the foreclosure judgment was concluded in superior court.
" ' Cotton v. Fed. Land Bank etc., 171 Ga.App. 360, 361(2), 320 S.E.2d 235, supra. In the case sub judice, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in denying defendant's motion to continue the dispossessory action.
4. In her final enumeration, defendant contends the trial court erred "in ruling that [plaintiff] had met her burden and issuing a writ of possession."
Plaintiff proved that she was granted a second security deed to the premises and that the second security deed was subordinate to a first deed to secure debt. Plaintiff also proved that defendant's interest in the premises was foreclosed by virtue of the power of sale contained in the second security deed; that she purchased the premises at the foreclosure sale and that she subsequently purchased the premises at a foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to the power of sale contained in the first deed to secure debt. This evidence was sufficient to authorize a finding that defendant became a tenant at sufferance by operation of law and that plaintiff had McKinney v. South Boston Savings Bank, 156 Ga.App. 114, 116(4), 274...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Guthrie v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Na
...a dispossessory action by arguing that the landowner seeking possession does not have proper title to the property. Roberts v. Collins, 199 Ga. App. 614, 614 (1991); Ranger v. First Family Mortg. Corp. of Fla., 176 Ga. App. 715, 715 (1985) (attack on mortgage company's title to property on ......
-
Cloud v. Georgia Cent. Credit Union
...concerning the validity of the foreclosure sale, these arguments cannot be used to contest the dispossessory. Roberts v. Collins, 199 Ga.App. 614, 405 S.E.2d 508; Cotton v. Fed. Land Bank, 171 Ga.App. 360, 361, 320 S.E.2d 235. Moreover, contrary to appellants' assertions, as former owners r......
-
Francis v. Reynolds, A94A1323
...the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.' (Cits.)" [Cits.]' " Roberts v. Collins, 199 Ga.App. 614(3), 405 S.E.2d 508 (1991). Additionally, "[i]t is well established that all continuances for which express provision has not been made are gr......
-
Sbp Management, LLC v. Price
...It is well settled that these summary proceedings involve possession only, and do not concern title to land. Roberts v. Collins, 199 Ga.App. 614(2), 405 S.E.2d 508 (1991). Specifically, a former owner, now a tenant, cannot defend a dispossessory action by means of a claim that the contract ......