Martin v. Hamilton State Bank

The trial court properly rejected the challenge the defendant made in an emergency motion prior to entry of the order on the remittitur in a prior appeal, as the issue raised was not within the scope of the prior appeal.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In Martin v. Hamilton State Bank,1 hereinafter “Martin I” the first appearance of this dispute before this court, we affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Bartow County Bank wherein the evidence showed that Larry Martin had failed to make payments required under the terms of several promissory notes and that Bartow County Bank had declared a default for nonpayment and accelerated the debt due under the notes.2 In reaching our decision we noted that, “After the notice of appeal was filed below, the assets of Bartow County Bank apparently were assigned to Hamilton State Bank,” and we allowed Hamilton State Bank hereinafter “HSB” to be substituted as a party for Bartow County Bank.3

Just over a month after Martin had filed in the trial court his notice of appeal giving rise to Martin I, HSB filed in the trial court a motion for substitution of party plaintiff, asserting that Bartow County Bank no longer had any interest in the assets associated with Martin’s loan, asserting that HSB owned Martin’s loan assets entirely, and moving for HSB’s substitution as the party plaintiff in place of Bartow County Bank. Approximately eight days after the motion for substitution of party was filed, the trial court entered two consent orders whereby Martin and HSB agreed that HSB would be substituted for Bartow County Bank as party plaintiff in the case, that the judgment entered in favor of Bartow County Bank and against Martin had been assigned to HSB and that the records of the superior court would be changed to reflect the assignment of that judgment to HSB; and that Martin would post a supersedeas bond in a set amount or pledge additional collateral with an agreed value of said set amount to secure the judgment entered in favor of HSB.

Martin v. Hamilton State Bank

The trial court properly rejected the challenge the defendant made in an emergency motion prior to entry of the order on the remittitur in a prior appeal, as the issue raised was not within the scope of the prior appeal.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report