McHAFFIE v. DECATUR FEDERAL SAVINGS LOAN ASS'N

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

A94A0913.

Advocates

Cecil E. McHaffie, pro se. McCurdy Candler, Dana B. Miles, Donald C. Suessmith, Jr., Webb, Tanner Powell, Ralph L. Taylor III, Steven A. Pickens, for appellees.

Judges

Judge Harold R. Banke.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Decatur Federal Savings Loan Association foreclosed on and sold the appellant’s real property to Brand Banking Company for $52,742.33. Because the sale generated $23,601.33 beyond the appellant’s indebtedness, and multiple parties asserted interests in the surplus, Decatur Federal deposited the funds with the court and filed an interpleader action. [1][2]

After a bench trial at which the appellant participated but presented no evidence, the trial court awarded the excess proceeds to Brand Banking based on its properly recorded, second-priority deed to secure debt and the appellant’s $25,645.46 indebtedness. The appellant appealed. [3]

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court’s judgment awarding the surplus foreclosure proceeds to Brand Banking was supported by the evidence. [3][4]
Whether the appellate court should review the merits despite the appellant’s failure to comply with several appellate rules and failure to identify specific trial-court error. [5][6]

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Collier v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 205 Ga. App. 323 (422 S.E.2d 52) (1992)	A pro se appellant may receive lenient review despite briefing deficiencies, but still bears the burden of affirmatively showing error from the record. [6]	Because the appellant identified no trial-court error, the court examined whether the evidence generally supported the judgment. It treated the bench-trial judgment as a jury verdict and affirmed if any evidence supported it, construing the evidence in favor of Brand Banking. [4]

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellant failed to comply with several Court of Appeals Rules, and his enumerations of error consisted of factual allegations that did not identify any error by the trial court. His stated issues and supporting authorities were also unrelated to the enumerations and irrelevant to the matters tried. [5]

Despite these deficiencies, the court elected to review the merits to the extent it could discern the appellant’s arguments because he was proceeding pro se. The appellant nevertheless retained the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error through the record. [6]

Because no specific error was identified, the court reviewed whether the evidence generally supported the judgment. For a bench trial, the trial judge’s judgment is considered like a jury verdict and must be affirmed if supported by any evidence, with the evidence construed most strongly in favor of the prevailing party. [4]

The uncontroverted evidence established Brand Banking’s properly recorded second-priority deed to secure debt and the appellant’s debt of $25,645.46 under the secured promissory note. The court therefore concluded that the evidence amply supported awarding the surplus proceeds to Brand Banking. [3][4]

Holding and Implications

Judgment affirmed. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s award of the excess foreclosure proceeds to Brand Banking. [4][7]

The direct effect was to leave Brand Banking entitled to the surplus funds. The opinion does not discuss broader implications, and no new precedent was set by the disposition. [3][7]

Show full summary ...

McHAFFIE v. DECATUR FEDERAL SAVINGS LOAN ASSOCIATION et al.

Judge Harold R. Banke.

The appellant, a pro se litigant, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of the appellee, Brand Banking Company ("Brand Banking"), in an interpleader action brought by the appellee, Decatur Federal Savings Loan Association ("Decatur Federal").

Exercising its power of foreclosure and sale with respect to real property owned by the appellant, Decatur Federal sold the property to Brand Banking for the sum of $52,742.33. The purchase price exceeded the appellant's indebtedness to Decatur Federal by $23,601.33. To identify who was entitled to the excess funds, Decatur Federal conducted a title examination of the property which revealed that Brand Banking held a second priority deed to secure debt and that the appellee, Bramblett Drywall Supply, held a judgment lien against the appellant. Faced with three potential claims to the funds, Decatur Federal paid the funds into the registry of the court and filed a complaint for interpleader.

The matter was tried before the trial court without a jury. The appellant was present at trial and participated in the proceedings but did not present any evidence. The uncontroverted evidence shows that Brand Banking held a properly recorded deed to secure debt on the property which was second in priority to Decatur Federal's interest and that the appellant was indebted to Brand Banking in the sum of $25,645.46 on the promissory note secured by Brand Banking's deed to secure debt. Thus, the excess proceeds were awarded to Brand Banking, and this appeal followed.

On appeal, the appellant has failed to comply with several Court of Appeals Rules, including Rule 27, Rule 15 (a), and Rule 15 (c). Instead, the appellant's "brief" includes "enumerations of error" which consist of nine factual allegations, none of which identify error committed by the trial court. This is followed by a "statement of the issues" in which all nine statements are accompanied by citations of authority, but they are totally unrelated to the enumerations of error and irrelevant to the matters at issue in the trial.

"Notwithstanding the deficiencies in appellant's presentation, we are willing, because of appellant's pro se status, to review the merits of appellant's argument to the extent that we can discern what those arguments are. However, in spite of our leniency, appellant still has the burden of showing error affirmatively by the record. [Cit.]" Collier v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 205 Ga. App. 323 ( 422 S.E.2d 52) (1992).

Since the appellant failed to identify any errors committed by the trial court, we examined the record to ascertain whether the evidence generally supported the judgment. "A trial judge sitting without a jury is entitled to have his judgment considered as a verdict by a jury, and if there is any evidence to support the finding, it should be affirmed. Also the evidence must be construed most strongly in favor of the prevailing party." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 324. In the instant case, the evidence amply supports the trial court's judgment in favor of Brand Banking.

Judgment affirmed. Birdsong, P. J., and Blackburn, J., concur.

DECIDED AUGUST 4, 1994.