Brown v. Georgia State Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brown v. Georgia State Bank

234 S.E.2d 151, 141 Ga. App. 570, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1997

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 11, 1977

Docket53507

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 234 S.E.2d 151 (Brown v. Georgia State Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Georgia State Bank, 234 S.E.2d 151, 141 Ga. App. 570, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1997 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Presiding Judge.

The appellant concedes that the question on this appeal is whether a secured purchase-money creditor must first foreclose on the secured property and then seek a deficiency or whether he can seek a general judgment on the debt without foreclosing on the security. The appellant argues that the appellee as a secured purchase-money creditor is limited to the procedures of Code Ann. § 67-1503 et seq. and may not elect to proceed under Code § 67-1501. This argument was rejected in Gentry v. Hibbler-Barnes Co., 113 Ga. App. 1,2 (147 SE2d 31). "A creditor who holds a promissory note secured by a deed is not put to an election of remedies as to whether he shall sue upon the note or exercise a power of sale contained in the deed, but he may do either, or 'pursue both remedies concurrently until the debt is satisfied.’ ” Oliver v. Slack, 192 Ga. 7, 8 (14 SE2d 593) and cits. There is no merit in the enumerations of error.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Deen, Presiding Judge.

The appellant concedes that the question on this appeal is whether a secured purchase-money creditor must first foreclose on the secured property and then seek a deficiency or whether he can seek a general judgment on the debt without foreclosing on the security. The appellant argues that the appellee as a secured purchase-money creditor is limited to the procedures of Code Ann. § 67-1503 et seq. and may not elect to proceed under Code § 67-1501. This argument was rejected in Gentry v. Hibbler-Barnes Co., 113 Ga. App. 1,2 (147 SE2d 31). "A creditor who holds a promissory note secured by a deed is not put to an election of remedies as to whether he shall sue upon the note or exercise a power of sale contained in the deed, but he may do either, or 'pursue both remedies concurrently until the debt is satisfied.’ ” Oliver v. Slack, 192 Ga. 7, 8 (14 SE2d 593) and cits. There is no merit in the enumerations of error.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 S.E.2d 151, 141 Ga. App. 570, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-georgia-state-bank-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack