Cotton v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GWINNETT COUNTY

220 S.E.2d 132, 235 Ga. 511, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 916
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedOctober 28, 1975
Docket30404
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 220 S.E.2d 132 (Cotton v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GWINNETT COUNTY) 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
Cotton v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GWINNETT COUNTY, 220 S.E.2d 132, 235 Ga. 511, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 916 (Ga. 1975).

Opinion

Ingram, Justice.

Plaintiffs appeal "from the vacation of the Temporary Restraining Order entered in this action on August 25, 1975,” in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County. The complaint seeks to enjoin the foreclosure of plaintiffs’ real property and also seeks the recovery of damages. Plaintiffs assert that "The central issue of law [in this appeal] is whether the court below erred in vacating the Temporary Restraining Order and allowing the foreclosure of [the] real property.”

We cannot reach the other issues pending in this case in the trial court because the foreclosure sale which plaintiffs sought to enjoin has taken place and whether the trial court erred in vacating its temporary restraining order which originally halted the foreclosure sale is now a moot question. After careful consideration, both the trial court and this court denied plaintiffs’ application for supersedeas and the foreclosure sale was allowed to take place.

The fact that the bank purchased the property at the foreclosure sale and has not sold the property does not prevent the injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs from *512 having become moot. This is necessarily true because the injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs, and which was denied by both courts, was to stop the foreclosure. The foreclosure sale has taken place. Thus, the very event sought to be restrained from happening has in fact occurred. Neither the legality of the foreclosure sale nor the other issues raised in the complaint are decided in this appeal. However, since the injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs cannot now be granted, it is moot and defendants’ motion to dismiss this appeal must be granted. Brown v. Auchmuty, 232 Ga. 879 (209 SE2d 209) (1974).

Argued October 14, 1975 Decided October 28, 1975. Neely & Player, Edgar A. Neely, III, William F. Welch, for appellants. Webb, Fowler & Tanner, T. Michael Tennant, Jones Webb, William G. Tanner, for appellees.

Appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

CRAWFORD Et Al. v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC.
805 S.E.2d 119 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2017)
The MASHBURN FAMILY TRUSTS v. CITY OF CUMMING Et Al.
797 S.E.2d 925 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2017)
Marilyn E. Goodrich v. Bank of America, N. A.
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2014
Goodrich v. Bank of America, N.A.
762 S.E.2d 628 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2014)
Morgan v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
795 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (N.D. Georgia, 2011)
Fincher v. Fleet Mortgage Group, Inc.
555 S.E.2d 120 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2001)
Brown v. Spann
520 S.E.2d 909 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1999)
Crim v. Sorrow
255 S.E.2d 19 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1979)
Faulkner v. Georgia Power Co.
247 S.E.2d 80 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
220 S.E.2d 132, 235 Ga. 511, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cotton-v-first-national-bank-of-gwinnett-county-ga-1975.