First Nat'l Bank of Polk County v. Carr

There was no mutual mistake of fact regarding property pledged for a loan where the property owners were aware that their home was not situated on the pledged lots.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Edward and Esther Carr owned four contiguous lots in Fannin County, Georgia, which were known as Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. On November 1, 1990, the Carrs executed a security deed in favor of First National Bank of Polk County the “Bank” in the amount of $75,000, pledging Lots 1 and 4 as collateral. Appellee A.C. Ramsey obtained a judgment in the amount of $76,000, plus interest of one percent per month, against Edward Carr in the State Court of Cobb County on December 13, 1990. Ramsey filed a writ of fiera facias against the Carrs, causing Sheriff Walter A. Porter to levy Lots 2 and 3 of the Carrs’ property.1 After proper advertisement for sale, Lots 2 and 3 were sold to Ramsey on September 3, 1991, for $10,000. As a part of the sale, Ramsey obtained the Carrs’ house, which was on Lot 3. The Bank assumed that the house was a part of the collateral the Carrs pledged in the security deed. The Bank filed an action against the Carrs, Ramsey, and Sheriff Porter, seeking reformation of the security deed and cancellation of the levy and sale of Lots 2 and 3 to Ramsey. The jury, sitting in an advisory capacity, answered special interrogatories.2 The trial judge adopted the jury’s findings and entered judgment for Ramsey on October 31, 2000. On January 30, 2002, the trial court entered an order revising its earlier judgment to include findings of fact and conclusions of law.3 On appeal, The Bank challenges the findings of fact and conclusions of law. “Factual findings and credibility determinations by the trial court will be upheld on appeal if there appears in the record any evidence to support them,”4 and conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.5

1. In its first enumerated error, the Bank argues that the trial court erred by failing to include in its findings of fact that there was a mutual mistake of fact regarding the description of the property used as collateral for the loan. We disagree.

First Nat'l Bank of Polk County v. Carr

There was no mutual mistake of fact regarding property pledged for a loan where the property owners were aware that their home was not situated on the pledged lots.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report