Coote v. Branch Banking and Trust Co.

The plaintiff, an experienced real estate investor, failed to exercise ordinary care for his interests, since he took no steps to verify that the real property at issue's stated value was correct.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Omar Coote appeals from the summary judgment granted to all defendants in his suit claiming fraud, negligence, and RICO1 violations as a result of his purchase of real property from defendant Rodney Cooley, financing for the purchase by defendants Kevin Lubitz, Mario Abi-Sarkis, and their employer Branch Banking and Trust Co. BB&T, appraisal of the property by defendants JA Services, LLC, and its employees Tawana Kerr and Mark Jackson II, and the closing of the transaction by defendants attorney William E. Brumby II and his professional corporation.2 Upon motion for summary judgment, it is the movant’s burden to show that no genuine issue of material fact is at issue and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. The movant may discharge such burden by reference to affidavits, depositions, and other documentary evidence of record showing no evidence in support of the nonmovant’s case. Id. After the movant discharges his burden, the nonmovant cannot rest on his pleadings, but instead must come forward with evidence establishing a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 e; Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins , 261 Ga. 491 405 SE2d 474 1991. We review the trial court’s decision on motion for summary judgment de novo, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cit.” Gilhuly v. Dockery , 273 Ga. App. 418, 418-419 615 SE2d 237 2005.

So viewed, the evidence here was that, on April 3, 2002, Rodney Cooley, a real estate investor, purchased the property at 65-A Spring Lane, Atlanta for $50,000. He financed the purchase of the property through BB&T, and an appraisal was ordered by BB&T from JA Services for underwriting purposes. The appraisal was dated March 22, 2002.

Coote v. Branch Banking and Trust Co.

The plaintiff, an experienced real estate investor, failed to exercise ordinary care for his interests, since he took no steps to verify that the real property at issue's stated value was correct.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report