Jesse Matson, IV, appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, Bayview on his complaint alleging wrongful foreclosure. Matson asserts that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Bayview and denying his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the illegality and voidness of defendant’s foreclosure. The issue in this appeal is whether the reversion provisions in OCGA § 44-14-80 precluded Bayview from exercising its rights under a security deed to foreclose upon Matson’s property. For the reasons explained below, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Bayview and affirm its denial of summary judgment to Matson.
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. We review a grant or denial of summary judgment de novo and construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Home Builders Assn. of Savannah v. Chatham County, 276 Ga. 243, 245 1 577 SE2d 564 2003. So viewed, the record shows that Matson purchased the subject property in 1998 through a 30-year first mortgage. In 2002, he borrowed $53,000 from First National Bank under a note with a fixed one-year term that provided for monthly payments of interest with the principal balance due at maturity. This note was secured with a security deed on the subject property that was recorded on November 6, 2002. The security deed stated that it secured a promissory note dated November 1, 2002 that Matson promised to pay in full no later than November 10, 2003. It also stated generally that this Security Instrument secures to Lender . . . the repayment of the Loan, and all renewals, extensions and modifications of the Note . . . Borrower does hereby grant and convey to Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns, with power of sale, the subject property.