Boyce v. Hughes

4 Citing cases

  1. Southeast v. Security Nat. Bank

    469 S.E.2d 454 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 10 times

    2. If a foreclosure advertisement is not defective as a matter of law, defects in it will prevent confirmation only if the factfinder determines those defects "chilled" bidding and caused an inadequate selling price. Boyce v. Hughes, 241 Ga. 357, 358(1) ( 245 S.E.2d 308) (1978); see also Smith v. Citizen Southern Fin. Corp., 245 Ga. 850, 853(3) ( 268 S.E.2d 157) (1980). A primary object of the advertisement is to attract buyers who will compete against one another so as to yield the highest price; its contents are important to the process.

  2. In re Cooper

    317 B.R. 500 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2004)

    Suppose the advertisement included information not required by the statute. Was the additional information likely to mislead or cause confusion in potential bidders? Boyce v. Hughes, 241 Ga. 357, 245 S.E.2d 308 (1978) (amount of debt); Southeast Timberlands, Inc. v. Security National Bank, 220 Ga.App. 359, 469 S.E.2d 454 (1996) (amount of debt); West Lumber Co. v. Schnuck, 204 Ga. 827, 51 S.E.2d 644 (1949) (application of sale proceeds); Thomas v. Dockins, 75 Ga. 347 (1885) (change in county); Walker v. Northeast Production Credit Assoc., 148 Ga.App. 121, 251 S.E.2d 92 (1978) (sale subject to senior lien). Suppose the advertisement did not include some information not required by the statute.

  3. Concepts, Inc. v. First Sec. Realty Serv

    743 P.2d 1158 (Utah 1987)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that typographical error in the statutory notice of sale did not prejudice the trustor

    Id. Defects in the notice of foreclosure sale that will authorize the setting aside of the sale must be those that would have the effect of chilling the bidding and causing an inadequacy of price. Boyce v. Hughes, 241 Ga. 357, 245 S.E.2d 308 (1978). The remedy of setting aside the sale will be applied only in cases which reach unjust extremes.

  4. Whitney Nat. Bank v. Jeffers

    573 So. 2d 1262 (La. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 15 times
    Observing that "[t]he pledgee has the legal right to proceed on the pledge or to wait until the maturity of the principal obligation and sue on it, disregarding the pledged property"

    Defendants in this case make no demand upon the plaintiff to take action, made no tender of costs, nor offer of indemnity. Hughes v. Boyce, 2 La.Ann. 805."]. The trial court's judgment reflects that the reconventional demand can not be amended to remove the grounds of Whitney's objection.