Bush v. Bank of New York Mellon
313 Ga. App. 84
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Bushes borrowed nearly $800,000 from First Horizon and executed a promissory note secured by a DeKalb County home; security interest later assigned to Bank of New York Mellon and foreclosure threatened; Bushes filed amended complaint with 133 paragraphs and 17 counts, incorporating prior pleadings and exhibits; several defendants answered, Bank of New York asserted counterclaims to strike filings and obtain declaratory relief; trial court granted some motions on the pleadings, dismissed others, and enjoined Bushes from filing further real-property papers; court concluded Bushes failed to state a claim and vacated judgments, remanding for a more definite statement of claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended complaint states identifiable claims. | Bushes assert multiple statutory and common-law claims. | Bank of New York asserts claims rely on an improper tender theory under OCGA 11-3-603. | Remand required for a definite statement. |
| Whether trial court properly addressed shotgun pleading deficiencies. | Bushes contend complaint should be understood and permits relief. | Defendants argue the pleading is confusing and fails to state the claims. | Court should require a more definite statement; cannot discern claims from amended pleading. |
| Whether OCGA 11-3-603 tender theory supports dismissal on the pleadings. | Bushes rely on tender and discharge theory under OCGA 11-3-603. | Bank of New York argues GA Commercial Code and tender requirements do not support discharge here. | Premature to decide; remand to clarify claims. |
| Whether denial to add First Horizon as a defendant was proper. | Bushes sought to add First Horizon; contend denial was premature. | Court deemed addition futile given lack of viable claims against others. | Denial vacated; remand to determine if addition is warranted after clearer pleadings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Benedict v. State Farm Bank, FSB, 309 Ga. App. 133 (2011) (pleading standards; short and plain statement; fair notice; need for more definite statement if deficient)
- Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075 (11th Cir. 2001) (shotgun pleadings harm court; need to require more definite statement)
- Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated, 516 F.3d 955 (11th Cir. 2008) (shotgun pleadings; guidance on identifying claims and multiple defences)
- Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2001) (characteristics of shotgun pleadings; burden on court to require clarification)