Jeffrey Bryant appeals from two separate orders of the DeKalb County Superior Court, both of which arose out of a single lawsuit and both of which were entered on the same day. The first of these orders granted summary judgment against Bryant and in favor of Optima International, Inc. Optima, on a 2001 promissory note Bryant executed in conjunction with a loan he received from Optima. The second order granted summary judgment against Bryant and in favor of Innovative Consultants Group, Inc. Innovative, on a 2004 promissory note Bryant gave in exchange for a loan from Innovative. Bryant argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Optima because that company failed to file suit on the 2001 promissory note within the applicable limitation period. Bryant further contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of both Optima and Innovative because the two entities function as Madan’s corporate alter egos; because a security interest in the same piece of real property was given to secure both loans; and because after Optima foreclosed on that property, it failed to seek a confirmation of the foreclosure sale. For reasons set forth more fully below, we find that one or more questions of fact exist as to whether Optima’s failure to confirm the foreclosure sale bars the claims asserted by Optima and Innovative in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the orders of judgment entered in favor of Optima and Innovative, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. In reviewing a grant or denial of summary judgment, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and we review de novo both the evidence and the trial court’s legal conclusions. GAPIII, Inc. v. Seal Indus., 338 Ga. App. 101 789 SE2d 321 2016 citation omitted. Moreover, we construe the evidence and all inferences and conclusions arising therefrom most favorably toward the party opposing the motion. SKC, Inc. v. EMAG Solutions, 326 Ga. App. 798 755 SE2d 298 2014.
