336 Ga. App. 201
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2010 Cronan borrowed $417,000 from Chase and executed a security deed that referenced parcel numbers and listed 2215 Dawnville Beaverdale Rd but attached a legal description that actually described 2253 Dawnville.
- Cronan defaulted; Chase foreclosed and the advertisement/foreclosure deed identified 2253 Dawnville. Chase later conveyed to Fannie Mae, which sought possession; the magistrate granted possession for 2253 only.
- Chase’s counsel filed two recorded Affidavits of Title asserting the deed was intended to encumber 2215 Dawnville, acknowledging the attached legal description described 2253, and stating Chase intended to correct the deed.
- Chase filed a complaint seeking reformation of the deed, declaratory relief, and to void the foreclosure; Chase later voluntarily dismissed that complaint and filed a second Affidavit of Title.
- Cronan filed counterclaims including abusive collection/libel and an amended verified counterclaim to quiet title; the trial court denied Cronan’s motions and dismissed his counterclaims.
- Cronan appealed, challenging dismissal of his quiet title claim, denial of attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11, and the trial court’s refusal to compel testimony from Chase’s counsel (attorney-in-fact).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether quiet title counterclaim should have been dismissed | Cronan: Affidavits and foreclosure cast a cloud on his title to 2215; deed’s legal description shows only 2253 was encumbered | Chase: Deed was intended to encumber 2215 and Affidavits merely assert that intent | Reversed: dismissal was error — allegations could support quiet title relief if Cronan holds unencumbered title to 2215 |
| Whether Cronan may recover attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11 | Cronan: fees appropriate given wrongful actions casting cloud on title | Chase: counterclaim is not independent; arises from same transaction as Chase’s complaint | Affirmed: fees denied because quiet title counterclaim was not independent under Byers |
| Whether trial court abused discretion quashing subpoena for Chase’s counsel testimony | Cronan: entitled to probe witness knowledge of parties’ subjective intent beyond recorded documents | Chase: testimony would intrude on attorney-client matters and was cumulative; affidavits and record supply facts | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion—requested testimony was cumulative and affidavits/public record supplied the facts |
| Proper standard on motion to dismiss (procedural) | Cronan: dismissal improper under OCGA § 9-11-12(b)(6) because facts could support relief | Chase: contended dismissal was appropriate | Court applied de novo standard and found dismissal improper as to quiet title claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Cumberland Contractors v. State Bank and Trust Co., 327 Ga. App. 121 (discussion of OCGA § 9-11-12(b)(6) dismissal standard)
- DOCO Credit Union v. Chambers, 330 Ga. App. 633 (trial court erred in dismissing quiet title action)
- Byers v. McGuire Properties, 285 Ga. 530 (counterclaim for fees under OCGA § 13-6-11 must be independent of plaintiff’s claim)
- Bazemore v. State, 244 Ga. App. 460 (trial court discretion to quash unreasonable subpoenas)
- LecStar Telecom, Inc. v. Grenfell, 273 Ga. App. 712 (subpoena abuse-of-discretion standard)
- In the Interest of N. S. M., 183 Ga. App. 398 (refusing cumulative testimony is within trial court discretion)