Jig Real Estate LLC v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc.

The trial court did not err in ruling that § 9-13-172.1-authorizing rescission of foreclosure sales under certain conditions-is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant JIG Real Estate, a limited liability company that speculates in real estate, brought this appeal to challenge the ruling of the trial court upholding the constitutionality of OCGA § 9-13-172.1 authorizing the rescission of foreclosure sales under certain conditions in its suit against appellee Countrywide Home Loans in which JIG asserted it was entitled as high bidder to delivery of the Deed Under Power to the home of appellees James and Tammi Garland. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. After James Garland, the owner of the property in issue, defaulted on his mortgage, Countrywide, the current holder of the deed to secure debt on the property, initiated foreclosure proceedings. The foreclosure sale was scheduled for March 6, 2007. Prior to that scheduled sale, appellees reached an agreement to cancel the foreclosure and modify the loan terms to cure the default. However, the law firm conducting the sale did not receive timely notice of this development. The record establishes that JIG was the high bidder on the property cried out by the law firm on Countrywide’s behalf on March 6th.

Two days after the sale, before any deed or deed under power was delivered, JIG was notified that, because the default had been cured prior to the foreclosure sale, the sale was rescinded pursuant to OCGA § 9-13-172.1. Returned with the notice were all bid funds paid by JIG and a check for two days of 18 percent interest on that payment. See id. at d. JIG chose to reject the money and demanded delivery of the deed under power; it subsequently filed suit against appellees. The trial court granted summary judgment to appellees on all of JIG’s claims.

Jig Real Estate LLC v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc.

The trial court did not err in ruling that § 9-13-172.1-authorizing rescission of foreclosure sales under certain conditions-is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report