First Federal Savings Bank v. Eaglewood Court Condominium Ass'n

367 S.E.2d 876, 186 Ga. App. 605, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 388
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 18, 1988
Docket75753
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 367 S.E.2d 876 (First Federal Savings Bank v. Eaglewood Court Condominium Ass'n) 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
First Federal Savings Bank v. Eaglewood Court Condominium Ass'n, 367 S.E.2d 876, 186 Ga. App. 605, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 388 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinions

Carley, Judge.

Appellant-defendant First Federal Savings Bank of Georgia (First Federal) made loans to Richard Burnette, who used the funds to buy condominium units in the Eaglewood Court development. First Federal held purchase money security deeds for each of Burnette’s units. Burnette subsequently defaulted on his loans from First Federal and on the condominium association assessments which he was obligated to pay to appellee-plaintiff Eaglewood Court Condominium Association, Inc. (Eaglewood). First Federal foreclosed on the property by exercising its power of sale as contained in the security deeds. After First Federal had assumed ownership of the units, Eaglewood sought payment from First Federal of a pro rata share of the defaulted assessments. See OCGA § 44-3-80 (f). First Federal refused to pay and Eaglewood brought this suit against First Federal. Eaglewood not only sought a recovery of a pro rata share of the defaulted assessments, but also sought a recovery as to such various penalties for late payment and attorney’s fees as were provided for in the Declaration of Condominium (Declaration). See OCGA § 44-3-109 (a) and (b). In all, Eaglewood sought an amount of not less than $4,880.17. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court ordered First Federal to pay $4,168.91, having found that sum to represent the principal amount of assessments, delinquency charges, interest, attorney’s fees, and expenses of litigation allocable to First Federal. First Federal appeals.

[606]*606It is clear that Eaglewood is authorized to maintain this civil action against First Federal for the recovery of such sums as are allegedly due to it as unpaid assessments. Not only is there no proscription as to Eaglewood’s maintenance of such a civil action, OCGA § 44-3-76 specifically empowers Eaglewood to maintain “an action to recover sums due. . . .” Accordingly, the only issue to be resolved is whether the trial court correctly held that, under the evidence of record, Eaglewood was authorized to recover $4,168.91 as the sum which was due from First Federal.

OCGA § 44-3-80 specifically provides that First Federal, as the foreclosing first mortgagee, “shall not be liable for nor shall the condominium unit be subject to a lien for any assessment under this Code section or under any condominium instrument chargeable to the condominium unit on account of any period prior to the acquisition of title. . . .” OCGA § 44-3-80 (f). Having unqualifiedly provided that a foreclosing mortgagee shall not be liable for nor shall the condominium unit be subject to a lien “for any assessment,” the statute then provides that “the unpaid share of an assessment or assessments shall be deemed to be common expenses collectable from all of the unit owners, including such holder or other person and [its] successors, successors-in-title, and assigns.” (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 44-3-80 (f). Thus, while First Federal is clearly not liable nor is its property interest subject to a lien for any assessment, it is obligated to pay a pro rata amount of that “unpaid share” which becomes a part of the common expenses.

The $4,168.91 judgment that was entered against First Federal does not represent merely a pro rata share of the unpaid assessments. That judgment also included a pro rata share of late charges, interest, attorney’s fees, expenses of litigation and fair rental value of the units in question. However, the only basis for recovery by Eaglewood of the additional expenses above enumerated would be as a result of the lien established pursuant to the provisions of OCGA § 44-3-109 (a). Subsection (b) of OCGA § 44-3-109 provides that “[t]o the extent that the condominium instruments provide, the lien for assessments shall also include” the late charge, interest, litigation expenses, and the fair rental value. However, since OCGA § 44-3-80 (f) specifically provides that no lien shall attach to the foreclosed property under the circumstances involved in this case and that the foreclosing mortgagee shall have no liability for an assessment or assessments per se, it must necessarily follow that, pursuant to OCGA § 44-3-80 (f), the only sum which would be “collectable” from First Federal is its pro rata portion of the “unpaid share of [the] assessment or assessments [which became a part of the] common expenses. . . .” To the extent that the trial court entered judgment against First Federal in an amount in excess of its pro rata portion of the unpaid share of the assessment [607]*607applicable to the foreclosed units, the trial court erred. Eaglewood would not be entitled to recover from First Federal a pro rata share of the elements enumerated in OCGA § 44-3-109 (b) because those elements arise only from the lien which results from the failure to make a timely payment of assessments. First Federal is liable only for a pro rata share of the original assessments. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed with direction that a new order, not inconsistent with this opinion, be entered.

Judgment reversed with direction.

Birdsong, C. J., Sognier, Pope, and Beasley, JJ., concur. Deen, P. J., McMurray, P. J., Banke, P. J., and Benham, J., dissent.

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

Related

Swan Creek Village Homeowners Ass'n v. Warne
2006 UT 22 (Utah Supreme Court, 2006)
Kingsmill Village Condominium Ass'n v. Homebanc Federal Savings Bank
420 S.E.2d 771 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1992)
American Holidays, Inc. v. Foxtail Owners Ass'n
821 P.2d 577 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1991)
First Federal Savings Bank v. Eaglewood Court Condominium Ass'n
367 S.E.2d 876 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
367 S.E.2d 876, 186 Ga. App. 605, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-federal-savings-bank-v-eaglewood-court-condominium-assn-gactapp-1988.