33276. CURL v. FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF GAINESVILLE et al.
Supreme Court of Georgia
March 8, 1978
241 Ga. 29
ARGUED FEBRUARY 13, 1978 — DECIDED MARCH 8, 1978.
Schreeder, Wheeler & Flint, David H. Flint, for appellants.
George P. Dillard, Gail C. Flake, Harland, Cashin, Chambers, Davis & Doster, James R. Harland, Harry L. Cashin, Jr., Simuel F. Doster, Jr., Wendell K. Willard, for appellees.
33276. CURL v. FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF GAINESVILLE et al.
HALL, Justice.
Appellant is seeking to set aside the foreclosure sale of her house, which resulted in the loss of her substantial equity in the property. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. In our opinion there are triable issues of fact, including but not limited to those discussed below, and we reverse.
Appellant contends that a quasi new agreement had been formed in the course of the execution of the lоan contract.
Appellant argues that the Savings & Loan had accepted similar late payments and reinstated the loan on prior occasions, and that this created a quasi new agreement to work out defaults without foreclosure. She believed that by accepting the $210 payment First Federal agreed to reinstate the loan on this occasion. First Federal‘s own evidence shows that prior defaults had been handled in a similar manner.
Appellees have failed to establish the nonexistence of any essential element of appellant‘s cause of action under
In light of the fact that this case must be remanded for trial, we exprеss no opinion as to the merits of appellant‘s arguments under
Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur, exсept Bowles and Marshall, JJ., who dissent.
ARGUED FEBRUARY 14, 1978 — DECIDED MARCH 8, 1978.
G. Hughel Harrison, John F. Doran, Jr., for appellant.
Telford, Stewart & Stephens, J. Douglas Stewart,
BOWLES, Justice, dissenting.
I cannot agree with the majority opinion in this case. I conclude as a matter of law that the association complied with
Bank checks are not payment until themselves paid.
After notice of return to the terms of the original contrаct is given and there is no compliance, demand is made for the full balance owed, and accеleration has occurred, a partial payment thereafter would not amount to a waiver of time of payment of an installment or a quasi new agreement for the reason that deferred payment timеs are no longer available to be waived. The whole debt is due, the contract provisions as to acceleration having been exercised at that time. Morrison v. Roberts, 195 Ga. 45 (23 SE2d 164) (1942). See also Giordano v. Stubbs, 228 Ga. 75 (184 SE2d 165) (1971).
Inadequacy of price paid upon the sale of property under power will not of itself and standing alone be sufficient reason for setting aside the sale. It is only when the price realized is grossly inadequate and the sale is accompanied by frаud, mistake, misapprehension, surprise or other circumstances which might authorize a finding that such circumstanсes contributed to bringing about the inadequacy of price that such a sale may be set aside by a cоurt of equity. Gunter v. Tucker Federal Savings &c. Assn., 237 Ga. 806 (229 SE2d 662) (1976); Giordano v. Stubbs, supra.
The due date of installments, deviated by mutual
A bona fide purchaser for value, without notice of an equity will not be interfered with by equity.
Additionally, for plaintiff to resort to a court of equity she must offer to do equity. She tendеrs nothing and offers to tender nothing. She cannot prevail.
