Finnerty v. State Bank and Trust Co.

The defendant's invasion of privacy claim was barred, because the pleadings filed in the case at hand, including the exhibits, which disclosed the defendant's social security number, were privileged as a matter of law and the privilege was absolute.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Donald Finnerty executed a promissory note payable to Security Bank of North Metro on August 15, 2007, in the principal amount of $1,160,000. Security Bank1 filed the present complaint on September 30, 2008, alleging Finnerty defaulted on the note. Finnerty counterclaimed for invasion of privacy and other damages associated with Security Bank’s inclusion of his social security number in an exhibit to the complaint. The trial court granted Security Bank’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against Finnerty. There is no dispute that Finnerty defaulted on the note. Rather, Finnerty argues that the trial court erred in granting Security Bank’s motion for summary judgment on his counterclaims. Specifically, Finnerty asserts that Security Bank’s unauthorized disclosure of his social security number violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act “GLBA”,2 and gave him state law claims for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, attorney fees, and punitive damages. We find no error and affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against Finnerty.

1. Finnerty’s argument ignores well-settled Georgia law establishing that such invasion of privacy claims are barred because the pleadings filed in this case, including the exhibits, are privileged as a matter of law: “All charges, allegations, and averments contained in regular pleadings filed in a court of competent jurisdiction, which are pertinent and material to the relief sought, whether legally sufficient to obtain it or not, are privileged.”3 Exhibits attached to complaints are part of the pleadings.4 And the privilege is absolute, entirely freeing the party from any liability to the person injured by the words or the publication.5

Finnerty v. State Bank and Trust Co.

The defendant's invasion of privacy claim was barred, because the pleadings filed in the case at hand, including the exhibits, which disclosed the defendant's social security number, were privileged as a matter of law and the privilege was absolute.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report