Mallett v. Fulford

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mallett v. Fulford

256 S.E.2d 49, 149 Ga. App. 773, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2025

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 9, 1979

Docket57353

StatusPublished

This text of 256 S.E.2d 49 (Mallett v. Fulford) 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

Mallett v. Fulford, 256 S.E.2d 49, 149 Ga. App. 773, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2025 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The defendant appeals from an order confirming a foreclosure sale under Code Ann. § 67-1503 et seq. (Ga. L. 1935, p. 381). This is the third appearance of the case in this court. See Mallett v. Fulford, 142 Ga. App. 200 (235 SE2d 650); Mallett v. Fulford, 147 Ga. App. 263 (248 SE2d 543). Held:

1. From our examination of the record and the trial judge’s findings of fact we hold that the judge’s findings are not clearly erroneous. See Code Ann. § 81A-152 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 645, 646; 1970, pp. 170, 171); Evans v. Marbut, 140 Ga. App. 329, 332 (231 SE2d 94).

2. The enumerations of error regarding the admission of certain evidence are without merit. Code § 38-1709.

3. The judge as the trier of fact was authorized not to rely on certain opinion evidence offered by a witness for the defendant. Even though the evidence was admissible, [774]*774the judge could give it such weight as he saw fit. Ford Motor Co. v. Hanley, 128 Ga. App. 311(2) (196 SE2d 454); Hogan v. Olivera, 141 Ga. App. 399 (233 SE2d 428); Harrison v. Tuggle, 225 Ga. 211, 212 (2) (167 SE2d 395).

Argued March 12, 1979 — Decided April 9, 1979 — Rehearing denied May 3, 1979 — G. Michael Hartley, William L. Martin, III, for appellant. Hollis B. Johnson, for appellee.

4. It was not error to confirm the sale.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Birdsong, JJ., concur.

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

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The defendant appeals from an order confirming a foreclosure sale under Code Ann. § 67-1503 et seq. (Ga. L. 1935, p. 381). This is the third appearance of the case in this court. See Mallett v. Fulford, 142 Ga. App. 200 (235 SE2d 650); Mallett v. Fulford, 147 Ga. App. 263 (248 SE2d 543). Held:

1. From our examination of the record and the trial judge’s findings of fact we hold that the judge’s findings are not clearly erroneous. See Code Ann. § 81A-152 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 645, 646; 1970, pp. 170, 171); Evans v. Marbut, 140 Ga. App. 329, 332 (231 SE2d 94).

2. The enumerations of error regarding the admission of certain evidence are without merit. Code § 38-1709.

3. The judge as the trier of fact was authorized not to rely on certain opinion evidence offered by a witness for the defendant. Even though the evidence was admissible, [774]*774the judge could give it such weight as he saw fit. Ford Motor Co. v. Hanley, 128 Ga. App. 311(2) (196 SE2d 454); Hogan v. Olivera, 141 Ga. App. 399 (233 SE2d 428); Harrison v. Tuggle, 225 Ga. 211, 212 (2) (167 SE2d 395).

Argued March 12, 1979 — Decided April 9, 1979 — Rehearing denied May 3, 1979 — G. Michael Hartley, William L. Martin, III, for appellant. Hollis B. Johnson, for appellee.

4. It was not error to confirm the sale.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Birdsong, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 S.E.2d 49, 149 Ga. App. 773, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mallett-v-fulford-gactapp-1979.

Opinion

4. It was not error to confirm the sale.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack