§

Zeller v. Home Fed

220 Ga. App. 843 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)
Zeller v. Home Fed

13 Citing cases

  1. Farris v. First Fin. Bank

    313 Ga. App. 460 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding that the debtor is the only party required to receive notice of foreclosure sale

    Id. 14. Zeller v. Home Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Atlanta, 220 Ga.App. 843, 845(2), 471 S.E.2d 1 (1996); see OCGA § 44–14–162.2(a). 15. Zeller, 220 Ga.App. at 845(2), 471 S.E.2d 1.

  2. Wright v. Barnett Mortgage

    485 S.E.2d 583 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that notice of foreclosure that failed to provide a reinstatement balance was not defective in the absence of harm caused by the omission

    In our view, plaintiff's argument that Barnett's constructive knowledge of her Hephzibah address triggered a duty to send the OCGA § 44-14-162.2 (a) notice of foreclosure to that Hephzibah address is controlled adversely to her by Zeller v. Home Federal Savings c., 220 Ga. App. 843, 844 (1), 845 ( 471 S.E.2d 1). In Zeller, this Court held: "[a] telephone call, a notation on a file by an employee of [the Creditor], and the receipt of payment by check with the new address, do not show compliance with the requirement that [the debtor] designate an address [other than that of the property encumbered] by `written notice.'"

  3. DeSouza v. Fed. Home Mortg. Corp.

    CV 110-130 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 6, 2012)

    Under Georgia law, "notice shall be in writing and shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the property address or to such other address as the debtor may designate by written notice to the secured creditor." O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2; see also Zeller v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n. of Atlanta, 220 Ga. App. 843, 845 (1996). Further, "O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2(a) plainly requires the secured creditor send notice to the property address unless the debtor designates in writing another address."

  4. Colbert v. Branch Banking and Trust

    691 S.E.2d 598 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    A telephone call, a notation on a file by an employee of [the Bank], and the receipt of payment by checks [or envelopes] with the new address, do not show compliance with the requirement that [the debtor] designate an address by "written notice."Zeller v. Home Fed. Sav. c., 220 Ga. App. 843, 845 (1) ( 471 SE2d 1) (1996). See also Jackson v. Bank One, 287 Ga. App. 791, 792-793 (1) ( 652 SE2d 849) (2007) (notice sent to originally designated address was sufficient under former OCGA § 44-14-162.

  5. Jackson v. Bank One

    287 Ga. App. 791 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 6 times
    Sending notice of foreclosure sale to nonexistent address did not render notice inadequate, even though debtor did not receive actual notice, because the nonexistent address was listed on both the note and security deed as the property address

    Jackson cannot complain that the holders of the note and deed did wrong by sending notice of the foreclosure sale to the property address as entered on instruments he executed and delivered. Bank One's notice was sent to the address specified by the statute, and was therefore reasonably calculated to apprise Jackson of the foreclosure. See Zeller v. Home Fed. Sav. c., 220 Ga. App. 843, 845 (1) ( 471 SE2d 1) (1996) (mere oral notification of alternate address does not obligate mortgagee to send notice of foreclosure sale to that address); see also Parks v. Bank of New York, 279 Ga. 418, 420 ( 614 SE2d 63) (2005), approving McCollum v. Pope, 261 Ga. 835 ( 411 SE2d 874) (1992) ("correctly addressed" mailing to grantor of security deed is sufficient to provide notice; grantor's "actual receipt" is "immaterial" to grantee's right to sale under power). Jackson also argues that he was released from the requirement of providing written notice of a change in the property address because neither the note nor the security deed required such notice.

  6. Dalton v. City of Marietta

    280 Ga. App. 202 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    Concluding that neurosurgeon's medical opinion on causation was admissible under the former medical narrative report statute as a "properly expressed medical opinion relating to his examination of [the patient]"

    Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 ( 405 SE2d 474) (1991)." Zeller v. Home Fed. Sav. c. of Atlanta, 220 Ga. App. 843 ( 471 SE2d 1) (1996). "Even slight evidence will be sufficient to satisfy the plaintiffs burden of production of some evidence on a motion for summary judgment; such evidence may include favorable inferences drawn by the court from [the] evidence presented.

  7. Stewart v. Johnson

    269 Ga. App. 698 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 14 times

    (Citation omitted.) Zeller v. Home Fed. S L Assn. c., 220 Ga. App. 843 ( 471 SE2d 1) (1996). It is well established that a plaintiff seeking to enforce a promissory note establishes a prima facie case by producing the note and showing that it was executed.

  8. Rubin v. Cello Corp.

    235 Ga. App. 250 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 110 times

    Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 ( 405 S.E.2d 474) (1991)." Zeller v. Home Fed. Savings c., 220 Ga. App. 843 ( 471 S.E.2d 1) (1996). 1. The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to Rubin establishes that Rubin slipped and fell at the Medical College of Georgia in an area where a fellow employee was applying Cello's product, Mop' N Strip.

  9. Zeigler v. Clowhite Co.

    234 Ga. App. 627 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 14 times

    Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 ( 405 S.E.2d 474) (1991)." Zeller v. Home Fed. Savings c. Assn., 220 Ga. App. 843 ( 471 S.E.2d 1) (1996). Viewed in the light most favorable to Zeigler, the facts reveal that Zeigler used the defendants' product, lemon-scented CloWhite Bleach, as a cleaning solution to wash the exterior wooden wall of a friend's house.

  10. Desouza v. Fed. Home Mortg. Corp.

    572 F. App'x 719 (11th Cir. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    Ms. DeSouza argues that the lenders' knowledge of her residential address in California "triggered a duty... to send notice" there. But the Georgia Court of Appeals rejected this very argument in Zeller v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Association of Atlanta, 471 S.E. 2d 1 (Ga. App. 1996). There, the Court of Appeals held that, even though the bank had actual knowledge of the borrower's new address, the plaintiff's "failure to provide written notice to [the bank] of her [residential] address as required by OCGA § 44-14-162.2(a) defeats her contention that [the bank] was obligated to notify her at [that] address."