Johnson v. Bank of America, N.A.
333 Ga. App. 539
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Bobby Johnson, pro se, sued to quiet title to property at 1721 Gallup Drive and filed a lis pendens, alleging he holds fee simple title by a 2006 warranty deed (attached) and that recorded assignments claiming an interest (to BANA and BONY) are invalid clouds on title.
- Defendants named included Pine State Mortgage (recorded security deed holder), Bank of America, N.A. (BANA), The Bank of New York Mellon (BONY), and unknown parties.
- BANA was served, answered, and moved to dismiss; Pine State and BONY did not appear to move to dismiss.
- The superior court granted BANA’s motion, dismissed Johnson’s complaint with prejudice, and cancelled the lis pendens, citing lack of standing to challenge assignments.
- Johnson appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the pleadings met the Quiet Title Act requirements and whether dismissal for lack of standing was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson’s petition to quiet title met OCGA § 23-3-62 pleading requirements | Johnson alleged current fee simple title by warranty deed, attached deed and survey, and identified instruments creating the cloud | BANA argued Johnson lacked standing to challenge assignments because he was not a party to them | Held: Johnson sufficiently pleaded a current title claim and met statutory pleading requirements; therefore he has standing to bring a quiet title action |
| Whether a non-party to assignments may challenge those assignments as clouds on title | Johnson contends anyone claiming an interest in land may bring a proceeding to remove clouds on title, regardless of party status to the challenged instrument | BANA relied on precedent and OCGA § 9-2-20(a) to argue only a party to the assignment (or contract) may challenge it | Held: Quiet Title Act permits a claimant who alleges a present title to challenge recorded instruments as clouds even if not a party to the assignment; OCGA § 9-2-20(a) (actions on a contract) is inapposite |
| Whether Montgomery and similar authorities required dismissal here | Johnson argued Montgomery was not controlling and the Quiet Title Act's standards control | BANA relied on Montgomery to support dismissal for lack of standing | Held: Montgomery was distinguishable and not controlling; trial court erred in relying on it to dismiss |
| Whether the trial court properly cancelled the lis pendens when dismissing the quiet title action | Johnson argued cancellation was improper because dismissal was erroneous | BANA implicitly supported cancellation as consequence of dismissal for lack of standing | Held: Because dismissal for lack of standing was erroneous, cancelling the lis pendens was also erroneous; dismissal and cancellation were reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Penny v. McBride, 282 Ga. App. 590 (de novo review of motion to dismiss)
- GHG, Inc. v. Bryan, 275 Ga. (Quiet Title Act pleading requirements; dismissal only if noncompliant with OCGA § 23-3-62)
- Smith v. Georgia Kaolin Co., 264 Ga. (who may bring a proceeding to quiet title)
- Montgomery v. Bank of America, 321 Ga. App. 343 (relied on by BANA; Court of Appeals found it distinguishable)
- Nelson v. Georgia Sheriffs Youth Homes, 286 Ga. (Quiet Title Act procedure and special master discussion; distinguishing facts)
- Woodruff v. Morgan County, 284 Ga. (special master and service procedures under Quiet Title Act)
- DOCO Credit Union v. Chambers, 330 Ga. App. 633 (reversing dismissal of quiet title action)