Slocum v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 58880
| Decision Date | 30 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 58880,58880 |
| Citation | 152 Ga.App. 632,263 S.E.2d 516 |
| Parties | SLOCUM v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ATLANTA. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Dennis S. Mackin, Atlanta, for appellant.
Wayne C. Crowe, Atlanta, for appellee.
First National Bank of Atlanta brought suit against Slocum for the balance of an indebtedness owed on a promissory note (secured by an automobile), including interest and attorney fees. The case was tried before a judge sitting without a jury. Slocum brings this appeal contending that the trial court erred in finding that the bank had given reasonable notification to the defendant as to the sale of the repossessed property, and in failing to find that the second notice sent by certified mail was returned "unclaimed" prior to the sale of the automobile. Held :
Appellant argues that the trial court's finding of fact was insufficient because it did not show that an employee of the bank testified that the notice letter which had been sent by certified mail was returned a second time on June 6, 1978, two days before the sale. " 'The purpose of findings of fact is threefold: as an aid in the trial judge's process of adjudication; for purposes of res judicata and estoppel by judgment; and as an aid to the appellate court on review.'
"The findings of the trial court in this case are sufficient to enable this court to understand clearly the basis of its decision and the conclusions of law reached by it." General Teamsters Local Union No. 528 v. Allied Foods, Inc., 228 Ga. 479, 480, 186 S.E.2d 527, 528 (1971). Doyal Development Co. v. Blair, 133 Ga.App. 613, 211 S.E.2d 642 (1974). We believe that the foregoing rules apply equally well to the present case in which the trial court included all of the facts except that the notice letter was returned to the bank two days before the sale which was held on June 8, 1978.
Where it cannot be determined if notice of the sale was returned prior to or after the sale, plaintiff's good faith in the transaction is a question for the trier of fact. C. and S. Nat. Bank v. Morgan, 142 Ga.App. 337, 235 S.E.2d 767 (1977). However, plaintiff has been held not to have carried its burden of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. B & D Builders & Developers, Inc.
...the secured party. Day v. Schenectady Discount Corp., 125 Ariz. 564, 568, 611 P.2d 568, 572 (1980); see Slocum v. First National Bank, 152 Ga.App. 632, 634, 263 S.E.2d 516, 517 (1979). As in most jurisdictions, there is no absolute requirement that the debtor actually receive notice. Day v.......
-
Calcote v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank
...was returned and [where] the sale was held almost four months after the notice letter was mailed. [Cit.]" Slocum v. First Nat. Bank, 152 Ga.App. 632, 633, 263 S.E.2d 516 (1979). The instant case is not on summary judgment and the sale was conducted within a few weeks of the return of a twic......
-
Friddell v. Rawlins, 62164
...Commercial Credit Corp., 130 Ga.App. 828, 204 S.E.2d 784 (1974). See also Henson v. Foremost Ins. Co., supra; Slocum v. First Nat. Bank, 152 Ga.App. 632, 263 S.E.2d 516 (1979). Furthermore, "a debtor may 'sign after default a statement renouncing or modifying his right to notification of sa......
-
Veitch v. National Bank of Georgia
...sits as trier of fact, his judgment will not be disturbed if there is any evidence to support it." Slocum v. First National Bank of Atlanta, 152 Ga.App. 632, 634, 263 S.E.2d 516 (1979). Judgment BANKE and CARLEY, JJ., concur. ...