Jenkins v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.

752 S.E.2d 633, 325 Ga. App. 376, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 3980, 2013 WL 6439357, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 997
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 10, 2013
DocketA11A2053
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 752 S.E.2d 633 (Jenkins v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.) 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
Jenkins v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 752 S.E.2d 633, 325 Ga. App. 376, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 3980, 2013 WL 6439357, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 997 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

McFADDEN, Judge.

The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings to Wachovia Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and all predecessor and successor entities and John Doe corporations (collectively, the “Bank”) in an action brought by Stephen Kale Jenkins alleging negligence, breach of a duty of confidentiality and invasion of privacy. In Division 1 of Jenkins v. Wachovia Bank, 314 Ga. App. 257 (724 SE2d 1) (2012), we reversed the grant of judgment on the pleadings as to the negligence claim. Id. at 258-261 (1). In Divisions 2 and 3 of our opinion, we affirmed the grant of judgment on the pleadings as to the claims for breach of a duty of confidentiality and invasion of privacy. Id. at 261-263 (2), (3).

In Wells Fargo Bank v. Jenkins, 293 Ga. 162 (744 SE2d 686) (2013), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the Bank was entitled to judgment on the pleadings on the negligence claim, and accordingly it reversed our judgment. Id. at 162. The Supreme Court noted that the grant of judgment on the pleadings on Jenkins’s remaining claims was “not at issue in [that] appeal.” Id. at 163, n. 1.

We therefore vacate Division 1 of our opinion in Jenkins v. Wachovia Bank, supra, 314 Ga. App. 257, and in its place adopt as our own the Supreme Court’s opinion in Wells Fargo Bank v. Jenkins, [377]*377supra, 293 Ga. 162. Because the Supreme Court neither addressed nor considered Divisions 2 and 3 of our earlier opinion, and those portions of our earlier opinion are consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion, those divisions “become binding upon the return of the remittitur.” Shadix v. Carroll County, 274 Ga. 560, 563 (1) (554 SE2d 465) (2001). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings to the Bank on all of the claims brought by Jenkins, and we affirm that judgment.

Decided December 10, 2013. Mann & Kytle, James W. Kytle, for appellant. Wornble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Robert R. Ambler, Jr., John G. Perry, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Phipps, C. J., and Andrews, P. J., concur.

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

Related

McCONNELL Et Al. v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
787 S.E.2d 794 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
752 S.E.2d 633, 325 Ga. App. 376, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 3980, 2013 WL 6439357, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-wachovia-bank-na-gactapp-2013.