Ceasar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
322 Ga. App. 529
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Ceasars sued Wells Fargo after foreclosure of their residence; Wells Fargo moved to dismiss and the trial court granted the motion; the Ceasars appeal the dismissal.
- Plaintiffs alleged wrongful foreclosure, negligence, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
- Loan originated March 20, 2003 from CTX Mortgage Company for $176,001 on 1155 Chris Lake Drive, Lawrenceville, GA; Security Deed named CTX as lender and MERS as nominee; Exhibit A referenced Lot 50 instead of Lot 58.
- Security Deed’s legal description existed, but a scrivener’s affidavit was recorded later to correct the description after transfer to Wells Fargo.
- Foreclosure proceeded after bankruptcy proceedings; forbearance proposals were offered but not executed; no tender of amounts due occurred.
- Court held reformation not required; complaint failed to state claims; dismissal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the scrivener’s affidavit cured the description error. | Ceasar argued the error required reformation; affidavit insufficient. | Wells Fargo argued the affidavit corrected the description. | Affidavit sufficient; no reformation needed. |
| Whether Ceasar stated a wrongful-foreclosure claim. | Ceasar claimed improper foreclosure practices. | Foreclosure complied with the security deed terms. | Dismissed wrongful-foreclosure claim. |
| Whether Ceasar stated a negligence claim. | Wells Fargo owed a duty and breached it. | No statutory/common-law duty or duty under HAMP; no breach. | Dismissed negligence claim. |
| Whether Ceasar stated a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. | Implied covenant formed part of contract and breached. | No independent breach without contract breach. | Dismissed implied-covenant claim. |
| Whether Ceasar stated an unjust-enrichment claim. | Contract exists; unjust enrichment not applicable. | Written contract precludes unjust enrichment claim. | Unjust-enrichment claim precluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Nash, 196 Ga. App. 543 (1990) (extrinsic evidence admissible to locate precise boundaries; perfection of description not required)
- Grant v. Fourth Nat. Bank of Columbus, 229 Ga. 855 (1972) (typographical error does not invalidate description when address and plat identify the property)
- Kennedy v. Gwinnett Commercial Bank, 155 Ga. App. 327 (1980) (foreclosure sale grounds to challenge only if conditions fail terms of instrument)
- Hill v. Filsoof, 274 Ga. App. 474 (2005) (tender of balance due prerequisite to setting aside foreclosure)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Phillips, 318 Ga. App. 819 (2012) (no private negligence action under HAMP)
- Myung Sung Presbyterian Church v. North American Assn. of Slavic Churches & Ministries, 291 Ga. App. 808 (2008) (implied covenant cannot survive absent breach of contract)
- Secured Realty Investment v. Bank of North Georgia, 314 Ga. App. 628 (2012) (implied covenant cannot be basis where contract exists)
- Bogard v. Inter-State Assurance Co., 263 Ga. App. 767 (2003) (unjust enrichment barred by written contract)
- Aames Funding Corp. v. Henderson, 275 Ga. App. 323 (2005) (reformation may be used post-foreclosure to correct errors in some cases)