Lanier v. Anthony

6 Citing cases

  1. Harris v. W. Cent. Ga. Bank

    335 Ga. App. 114 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that a lender who sought to exercise its right to foreclose on a property under a deed to secure debt could challenge the validity of an alleged prior deed to secure debt covering the same property

    But the evidence showed, and Harris admitted, that no promissory note existed, and there was no evidence that Harris advanced funds to Adcock. See, e.g., Beasley v. Paul, 223 Ga.App. 706, 711, 478 S.E.2d 899 (1996) (deed void where underlying promissory note unenforceable); compare Lanier v. Anthony, 261 Ga.App. 848, 851–852(1), 583 S.E.2d 893 (2003) (deed valid where evidence showed existence of debt, promissory note, and that funds were advanced). Had the parties intended the performance of obligations under the APW operating agreement to constitute consideration for the grant of a security interest in the property, they could have so provided. It is true that “[e]quity may intervene and reform a conveyance when the instrument fails to express accurately the intention of the parties.”

  2. Am. Nat'l Holding Corp. v. Emm Credit, Llc.

    756 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    See Ga. L. 2002, p. 141, §§ 2, 3. “OCGA § 18–2–22 was repealed on July 1, 2002, when Georgia enacted the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act, OCGA § 18–2–70 et seq.” Gerschick v. Pounds, 281 Ga.App. 531, 532(1)(a), n. 8, 636 S.E.2d 663 (2006); Miller v. Lomax, 266 Ga.App. 93, 96(2)(b), n. 1, 596 S.E.2d 232 (2004) (noting that “OCGA § 18–2–22, entitled, ‘Conveyances by debtors deemed fraudulent,’ was repealed effective July 1, 2002.”).Lanier v. Anthony, 261 Ga.App. 848, 852(1), 583 S.E.2d 893 (2003).Jones v. Spindel, 239 Ga. 68, 69(1), 235 S.E.2d 486 (1977) (citations omitted).

  3. Huggins v. Powell

    315 Ga. App. 599 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 8 times
    Observing that " purchaser seeking the benefit and protection of [ OCGA § 9-12-93 ] must prove three things: that he acted in good faith; that he paid a valuable consideration; and, in cases involving realty, that he has been in possession for four years," and that "[t]he burden of proof is placed upon the purchaser to prove good faith"

    Section 4 of the act also states that “[a]ll laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.”Lanier v. Anthony, 261 Ga.App. 848, 852(1), n. 8, 583 S.E.2d 893 (2003); Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 411 B.R. 805, 827 (N.D.Ga.2009) ( “Georgia prohibits fraudulent transfers which occurred prior to July 1, 2002, under OCGA § 18–2–22, and transfers which occurred after July 1, 2002, under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer[s] Act codified in OCGA §§ 18–2–70, et seq.” (citation and footnote omitted))..OCGA §§ 18–2–74(a)(1); 18–2–79(1).

  4. Huggins v. Powell

    A11A2228 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2012)

    " Lanier v. Anthony, 261 Ga. App. 848, 852 (1), n. 8 (583 SE2d 893) (2003); Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 411 B. R. 805, 827 (ND Ga. 2009) ("Georgia prohibits fraudulent transfers which occurred prior to July 1, 2002, under O.C.G.A. § 18-2-22, and transfers which occurred after July 1, 2002, under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act codified in O.C.G.A. §§ 18-2-70, et seq." (citation and footnote omitted)).

  5. Moore v. McBryar

    290 Ga. App. 725 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 3 times

    Further, as Hannah no longer owned the property previously conveyed to McBryar, she could not convey that property to Moore. See Lanier v. Anthony, 261 Ga. App. 848, 853 (1) ( 583 SE2d 893) (2003) ("A grantee in a deed takes no greater title than that held by the grantor. . . ."). The trial court, therefore, properly granted summary judgment to the McBryars on Moore's claims.

  6. Gray v. King

    270 Ga. App. 855 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 12 times
    Noting that a plaintiff seeking attorney fees must prove " ‘the actual costs of the attorney and the reasonableness of those costs’ "

    We note that it is unclear whether MM Motors was a corporation or other legal entity separate from Gray. See Lanier v. Anthony, 261 Ga. App. 848, 852 (1) ( 583 SE2d 893) (2003) (the Statute of Frauds requires a promise to pay the debt of another to be reduced to writing). In his testimony, Hardy King refers to the loan as if it were made to MM Motors, to both MM Motors and Gray, and to Gray, but the trial court could conclude the loan was made to Gray.