Bobick v. Community & S. Bank

The appellee bank was properly substituted as the plaintiff in the breach of promissory note action and the evidence was sufficient to establish a valid assignment of the appellant's promissory note to the bank.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This appeal arises out of a dispute over a promissory note executed by Appellant Sally Bobick in favor of First National Bank of Georgia “First National”. Contending that Bobick had defaulted on her loan obligations, First National filed the present action against her for breach of the note, and she answered and asserted several counterclaims against the bank and its CEO. First National failed while the litigation was pending, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation “FDIC” was appointed as receiver for the bank. The FDIC assigned and transferred certain assets of First National to Appellee Community & Southern Bank “CSB”. The trial court subsequently granted summary judgment to CSB on the claims for breach of the note, dismissed Bobick’s counterclaims, and entered final judgment in favor of CSB.

On appeal, Bobick contends that the trial court erred in granting CSB’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment because CSB was never properly substituted as the plaintiff and thus was never made a proper party to the suit. Bobick further contends that the trial court erred in granting CSB’s motion for summary judgment on the claim for breach of the promissory note because CSB was not a party to or an assignee of the note. Lastly, Bobick contends that the trial court erred in dismissing her counterclaims pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 “FIRREA”, Pub. L. No. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183 codified as amended in scattered sections of 12 U.S.C.. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the trial court’s rulings.

Bobick v. Community & S. Bank

The appellee bank was properly substituted as the plaintiff in the breach of promissory note action and the evidence was sufficient to establish a valid assignment of the appellant's promissory note to the bank.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report