Crow v. Cook

4 Citing cases

  1. Rounds v. Hall Cnty.

    367 Ga. App. 219 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    This clarification does "not amount to a material deviation from the terms" of the 1998 Adoption Agreement "so as to evidence substitution of the new agreement for the original [adoption] agreement." See Crow v. Cook , 215 Ga. App. 558, 561 (1) (a), 451 S.E.2d 467 (1994) (no novation where amendment to lease "was merely an agreement to correct an apparent error" in the prior lease). See also Brown v. Lawrenceville Properties, LLC , 309 Ga. App. 522, 524 (1), 710 S.E.2d 682 (2011) (parties’ corrections to lease did not amount to a novation).

  2. Fagbemi v. JDN Realty Corp.

    275 Ga. App. 540 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 3 times
    Finding that landlord's consent to assignment of a lease did not release the original tenant from liability because there was no evidence of intent for the assignment to act as a novation

    Sprayberry Crossing Partnership v. Tuley, 198 Ga. App. 53, 56-57 (2) ( 400 SE2d 334) (1990).Crow v. Cook, 215 Ga. App. 558, 562 (1) (b) ( 451 SE2d 467) (1994). In its order granting summary judgment, the trial court noted that Fagbemi did not file a response to the motion and made no request for oral argument and the court had ruled on brief.

  3. Fassero v. Weinstock Scavo

    583 S.E.2d 485 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)

    As recognized in Crow v. Cook, a novation's release of the original debtor and substitution of a new debtor "may be by express terms, or may be inferred from the acts of the parties or by necessary implication from a construction of the new agreement." 215 Ga. App. 558 ( 451 S.E.2d 467) (1994). (Citations and punctuation omitted.)

  4. Altama Delta Corp. v. Howell

    483 S.E.2d 127 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 14 times
    Holding exculpatory clause ambiguous where it conflicts with other provisions of party's agreement, precluding summary judgment where drafter of agreement not identified

    (b) OCGA § 53-12-199 (c) provides: "A judgment rendered in an action brought against the trust shall impose no personal liability on the trustee or the beneficiary." Though Crow v. Cook, 215 Ga. App. 558, 563 (3) ( 451 S.E.2d 467) (1994) questioned whether this statute effectively abolished the common law rule allowing trustees to be held liable, Altama Delta has cited no cases suggesting that beneficiaries might also be held liable, even under the common law. The trial court did not err in limiting the potential liability of White, White-Plouffe, and Pontello to the amount they would otherwise have received as trust beneficiaries, and its order is affirmed.