Jurden v. HSBC Mortgage Corp.
330 Ga. App. 179
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Jerry Jurden (pro se) sued HSBC Mortgage Corporation after HSBC conducted a non-judicial foreclosure sale on property securing Janie Crowe’s mortgage.
- Crowe purchased the land in 2006; Jurden moved a house onto the land in 2007 and lived there with Crowe.
- Crowe executed a security deed in favor of MERS in 2008 to secure a loan; after default, MERS transferred its interest to HSBC, which foreclosed.
- Jurden alleged wrongful foreclosure, fraud, and unjust enrichment, challenging the loan terms, the inclusion of the house as security, and the MERS-to-HSBC assignment.
- The trial court granted HSBC’s motion to dismiss under OCGA § 9-11-12(b)(6) and stayed discovery; Jurden appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint states a claim / standing to challenge loan and assignment | Jurden argued he could challenge validity of loan, assignment, and foreclosure impacting his residence | HSBC argued Jurden was not a party to the loan or assignment and thus lacks standing | Dismissal affirmed: Jurden lacks standing and complaint fails to state a claim |
| Whether the house moved onto the land was personalty (chattel) or part of the realty | Jurden argued the house should not have been treated as part of the secured real property | HSBC argued buildings attached to land are part of real estate and pass with the land | Court held house is part of realty under OCGA § 44-1-2(a)(1); attachment makes it part of land |
| Whether Jurden is a third‑party beneficiary of the loan or assignment | Jurden suggested he could enforce or challenge contracts affecting his residence | HSBC contended contracts were between Crowe, MERS, and HSBC, not intended to benefit Jurden | Court found no allegation showing intent to benefit Jurden; he is not a third‑party beneficiary |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in staying discovery pending motion to dismiss | Jurden argued the stay prevented discovery that might support his claims | HSBC (and court) argued discovery would not affect the dismissal outcome and courts may stay discovery for docket control; OCGA § 9-11-12(j) permits stays in similar contexts | Court held stay was not an abuse of discretion; Jurden showed no harm from the stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Austin v. Clark, 294 Ga. 773 (reciting standards for dismissals under OCGA § 9-11-12(b)(6))
- Barrett v. Britt, 319 Ga. App. 118 (items attached to land become part of the realty)
- Montgomery v. Bank of America, 321 Ga. App. 343 (plaintiff lacks standing to contest assignment between MERS and servicer)
- Breus v. McGriff, 202 Ga. App. 216 (strangers to an assignment contract lack standing to challenge it)
- Marvel Enters. v. World Wrestling Fed. Entm’t, 271 Ga. App. 607 (third‑party beneficiary must clearly appear from contract)
- Wylie v. Denton, 323 Ga. App. 161 (reiterating standing requirement for foreclosure‑related challenges)
- Settles Bridge Farm v. Masino, 318 Ga. App. 576 (trial court has wide discretion over discovery scheduling)
- Francis v. Reynolds, 215 Ga. App. 418 (courts may stay proceedings to manage their dockets)