James v. Intown Ventures LLC

The trial court erred by giving res judicata effect to the quiet title judgment and granting summary judgment to the real estate developer in spite of the affidavit evidence that the occupant was not served with the summons and complaint in the quiet title action.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant Rita James appeals from the trial court’s order granting partial summary judgment in favor of appellee Intown Ventures, LLC, on its claim for ejectment. For the reasons that follow, we reverse. It appears from the limited record before this Court that in 1964 James and her husband Willie purchased property consisting of two lots and a single-family home constructed across the lots.1 James and Willie lived on the property known to them as 539 Baker Circle until 1978 when they divorced. James received the property as part of the final divorce decree, and Willie executed a warranty deed conveying to James his interest in the property and using the same legal description as the 1964 warranty deed.

In 1997, Fulton County issued tax fifas against Archie R. James, Jr., for property identified as Baker Circle N.W. and a tax identification number of 14-0178-0005-046-5. James does not know Archie James and is not familiar with property simply known as “Baker Circle N.W.” or “0 Baker Circle N.W.” The county subsequently sold “0 Baker Circle” in November 2002 to Intown.2 In 2004, Intown filed a petition to quiet title with regard to the purchased property and named as defendants several entities and individuals, including James, based on its claim that it purchased some portion of James’ property at the sale.3 James did not file any pleadings in the case, although a return of service indicates she was served with the summons and complaint.

James v. Intown Ventures LLC

The trial court erred by giving res judicata effect to the quiet title judgment and granting summary judgment to the real estate developer in spite of the affidavit evidence that the occupant was not served with the summons and complaint in the quiet title action.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report