Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

PEACHTREE BANK TRUST COMPANY v. ATHA et al.

SHULMAN, Judge.

Plaintiff-creditor brought suit to cancel and render null and void a deed to real estate from defendant-husband to his wife (also a defendant) as a fraudulent conveyance under Code Ann. § 28-201 (2). The court entered a directed verdict on behalf of defendants-appellees on the grounds that plaintiff had renewed defendant-husband's note of indebtedness subsequent to its notice of the defendant-husband's deed of conveyance to his wife. On appeal, we affirm.

The undisputed evidence produced by plaintiff itself showed that plaintiff had knowledge of defendant-husband's conveyance of the real estate to his wife, prior to the time plaintiff renewed defendant's loan. It is clear, then, that plaintiff did not rely on defendant-husband's ownership of the real estate in issue when it subsequently extended him credit. Compare Gentry v. Cowan, McClung Co., 66 Ga. 720; Gormley v. Askew, 177 Ga. 554 ( 170 S.E. 674). This being so, the plaintiff, as a subsequent creditor with notice, could not void the conveyance under § 28-201 (2). Jowers v. High Point Furn. Co., 10 Ga. App. 297 (1) ( 73 S.E. 415). The court properly directed the verdict on behalf of the defendants.

Judgment affirmed. Deen, C. J., and Carley, J., concur.

SHULMAN, Judge.

ARGUED JULY 2, 1979 — DECIDED OCTOBER 1, 1979.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEACHTREE BANK TRUST COMPANY v. ATHA
(Oct 1, 1979)