Lovell v. Georgia Trust Bank
318 Ga. App. 860
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Georgia Trust Bank sued Lovell to recover principal, interest, and fees on a promissory note and renewals.
- Lovell moved to compel production of documents and Georgia Trust moved for summary judgment.
- Trial court denied Lovell’s motion to compel and granted summary judgment to Georgia Trust.
- Lovell argued Georgia Trust’s oral promise to work with him contradicted the Note and should preclude summary judgment.
- Notes were renewed in 2007, 2008, 2009, and a final renewal in 2010; Lovell failed to cure defaults after the final renewal.
- Georgia Trust asserted the Note was unconditional and any modification or pre-suit conditions must be in writing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in denying discovery. | Lovell. | Lovell. | No abuse of discretion; discovery barred by parol evidence rule. |
| Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on enforcement of the Note. | Lovell cannot defeat a prima facie case; oral promise not allowed to modify. | Lovell. | Granted; note is unconditional and parol evidence cannot modify it. |
| Whether Lovell established any affirmative defenses (estoppel or waiver). | Lovell relied on promise to work with him and for promissory estoppel. | No specific, definite terms; defenses fail as a matter of law. | Lovell failed to show enforceable estoppel or waiver; defenses rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Devin Lamplighter, Ltd. v. American Gen. Finance, 206 Ga. App. 747 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992) (parol evidence cannot modify an unconditional note)
- Core Lavista, LLC v. Cumming, 308 Ga. App. 791 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) (unambiguous terms control; parol evidence cannot alter)
- Bentley v. Nat. Bank of Walton County, 175 Ga. App. 732 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985) (parol evidence cannot vary contract as written)
- Trendmark Homes, Inc. v. Bank of North Georgia, 314 Ga. App. 886 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (negotiations not reduced to writing do not alter notes)
- Coleman v. Arrington Auto Sales & Rentals, 294 Ga. App. 247 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (testimony to contradict terms inadmissible)
- Beacon Eng’g Co. v. Reese, 186 Ga. App. 64 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988) (evidence of implied conditions not admissible)
- Latimore v. Vatacs Group, Inc., 317 Ga. App. 98 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (disputed discovery items must add to claim)
- Georgia Real Estate Properties v. Lindwall, 303 Ga. App. 12 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (de novo standard for summary judgment reviews)