Clare Development Corporation v. First National Bank of Columbus, Georgia

Supreme Court of Georgia

Clare Development Corporation v. First National Bank of Columbus, Georgia

256 S.E.2d 452, 243 Ga. 709, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 1041

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 31, 1979

Docket34559

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 256 S.E.2d 452 (Clare Development Corporation v. First National Bank of Columbus, Georgia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clare Development Corporation v. First National Bank of Columbus, Georgia, 256 S.E.2d 452, 243 Ga. 709, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 1041 (Ga. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, Justice.

The appellants sued, the bank for injunctive relief and damages for fraud arising out of the alleged breach of an agreement to make construction loans and wrongful foreclosure of property securing loans. Injunctive relief was denied and the bank’s motion for summary judgment was granted.

The case oí Beasley v. Ponder, 143 Ga. App. 810 (240 SE2d 111) (1977), is directly in point. There the court said: "The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendant. Although fraud can be predicated on a misrepresentation as to a future event where the defendant knows that the future event will not take place [cits.], fraud cannot be predicated on a promise which is unenforceable at the time it is made. [Cits.] A promise to make a loan with no specification of the interest rate or maturity date is not enforceable and will not support an action for fraud. [Cits.]”

In the case before us the bank adduced evidence from the plaintiffs showing that no enforceable agreement to make future loans existed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hill, Justice.

The appellants sued, the bank for injunctive relief and damages for fraud arising out of the alleged breach of an agreement to make construction loans and wrongful foreclosure of property securing loans. Injunctive relief was denied and the bank’s motion for summary judgment was granted.

The case oí Beasley v. Ponder, 143 Ga. App. 810 (240 SE2d 111) (1977), is directly in point. There the court said: "The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendant. Although fraud can be predicated on a misrepresentation as to a future event where the defendant knows that the future event will not take place [cits.], fraud cannot be predicated on a promise which is unenforceable at the time it is made. [Cits.] A promise to make a loan with no specification of the interest rate or maturity date is not enforceable and will not support an action for fraud. [Cits.]”

In the case before us the bank adduced evidence from the plaintiffs showing that no enforceable agreement to make future loans existed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 S.E.2d 452, 243 Ga. 709, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 1041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clare-development-corporation-v-first-national-bank-of-columbus-georgia-ga-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack