Brock v. Yale Mortgage Corporation

700 S.E.2d 583 (Ga. 2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and his wife were having marital difficulties. The Brocks purchased the property jointly in 1987, financing the transaction with a loan from First Railroad Mortgage Company. In connection with the loan, the Brocks executed a security deed and promissory note in the amount of $56,000 in the lender's favor. The Brocks did not have a joint bank account. P maintained a checking account and gave his wife money each month to make the loan payment, but she did not always use the funds for that purpose. As a result, the Brocks' loan went into default in October 1996. Joyce (W) allowed the game to continue by borrowing money from a friend bringing the note current. In August 2000, W received a second notice of foreclosure sale. W did not tell P about the notice. To forestall foreclosure, she worked out a payment plan with Atlantic. In January 2001, W received a third notice of foreclosure sale after defaulting under the payment plan. W did not inform P but procured a loan from Yale (D). At the February 2001 loan closing, W presented an executed, unrecorded quitclaim deed by which P purportedly transferred his interest in the property to her. Yale does not dispute that P's signature on the quitclaim deed is forged. Yale loaned Joyce $60,000, of which $15,460 was used to satisfy the Brocks' debt to the first mortgage company. W received $38,085.44 in cash at closing. W executed a promissory note and deed to secure debt in Yale's (D) favor. In May 2004, P discovered that his wife had spent over $200,000 from his checking account without his knowledge. He filed for divorce shortly thereafter. P then learned about the 2001 foreclosure proceedings, the forged quitclaim deed, and the Yale (D) loan. In August 2004, the Brocks executed a settlement agreement in their divorce proceedings in which W transferred 'any and all of her rights, title and interest [in the property], whether legal or equitable' to P. The settlement agreement was incorporated into the final judgment and decree in the divorce proceedings. In January 2005, P commenced this action. The trial court granted D's summary judgment motion, declaring that D holds a one-half undivided interest in the property. D filed an emergency motion for clarification and/or reconsideration, the trial court amended its order to add that D also 'holds the other one-half undivided interest in the property.' P appealed.