Matson v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC
339 Ga. App. 890
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Matson purchased property in 1998 and in 2002 executed a one‑year promissory note secured by a recorded security deed dated November 1, 2002, with maturity November 10, 2003. The security deed referenced all renewals, extensions, and modifications of the note and granted the lender power of sale.
- Matson and First National Bank repeatedly renewed the note on successive maturities, with the final documented renewal dated March 24, 2010. The record contains no evidence that any renewals were recorded in the public records as required by statute.
- The FDIC, as receiver for First National Bank, assigned the security deed to Bayview Loan Servicing in February 2013.
- Bayview foreclosed and sold the property at a power‑of‑sale foreclosure on November 5, 2013, after Matson failed to pay the outstanding maturity balance.
- Matson sued Bayview alleging wrongful foreclosure and tortious interference, seeking to set aside the sale and obtain damages; both parties moved for partial summary judgment on the lawfulness of the foreclosure.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Bayview, concluding recorded renewals extended the reversion period under OCGA § 44‑14‑80(b); Matson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether title reverted by operation of OCGA § 44‑14‑80 because seven years elapsed after the maturity date of the recorded security deed | Matson: title reverted as a matter of law because seven years passed from the note’s original maturity and renewals were not shown in the public record | Bayview: renewals (and language in security deed) extended the reversion period; security deed’s language secured all renewals and evidenced intent to extend reversion | Court: Reversed summary judgment for Bayview because the record lacks evidence whether renewals were recorded as required; cannot determine reversion as a matter of law |
| Whether the security deed’s general language created an express 20‑year or perpetual reversion period | Matson: deed did not show intent to create perpetual/20‑year reversion | Bayview: deed’s language securing “all renewals, extensions and modifications” established an intent to extend the reversion period | Court: Deed language alone insufficient to show intent for perpetual or 20‑year reversion; no merit to Bayview’s argument |
| Whether Matson was entitled to partial summary judgment that foreclosure was unlawful | Matson: absence of recorded renewals proves reversion and unlawful foreclosure | Bayview: renewals occurred and may have been recorded; factual dispute exists | Court: Affirmed denial of Matson’s summary judgment; Matson failed to make a prima facie showing because renewals appear in the uncontroverted evidence and record lacks proof they were not recorded |
| Standard for resolving reversion issue on summary judgment | Matson: record compels judgment for grantor if renewals not recorded | Bayview: factual dispute requires trial | Court: Summary judgment improper for Bayview where genuine issue exists about whether renewals were recorded; factual issue precludes final determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Home Builders Assn. of Savannah v. Chatham County, 276 Ga. 243 (2003) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Minor v. Neely, 247 Ga. 147 (1981) (recording requirement for renewals prevents reversion of title)
- Vineville Capital Group v. McCook, 329 Ga. App. 790 (2014) (interpretation of security‑deed language regarding estate duration)
- Stearns Bank v. Mullins, 333 Ga. App. 369 (2015) (perpetual or indefinite security interest established by express "remain in effect until released" language)
- BAC Home Loan Servicing v. Wedereit, 297 Ga. 313 (2015) (plaintiff’s burden on summary judgment to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law)