Dr. R. Pаrks Parnell, Jr. appeals from an order of the State Court of Cobb County which granted Etowah Bank’s motion for summary judgment and awardеd plaintiff the sum of $11,000 together with interest of $10,840.22 and attorney fees of $16,102.47.
On December 30 and 31, 1974, and February 18, 1974, Santana Land Developmеnt, Inc., executed four promissory notes in favor of Etowah Bank; two notes due May 24,1975, for $38,000 and $6,500, and two notes due June 21, 1975, for $45,800 and $6,500. Thesе notes were secured by two tracts of land; one located in Pickens County and the other in Cherokee County. All of the notеs contained guaranties of payment signed individually by Dr. Parnell. No payment of interest or principal was made by either Santana Land Development, Inc., or by Dr. Parnell. The security deed in Pickens and Cherokee *795 Counties were foreclosed upоn on February 3, 1976, and Etowah Bank purchased all of the properties at a total purchase price of $85,000. Confirmatiоn of the sale petitions was subsequently brought in the Superior Courts of Pickens and Cherokee Counties. After a hearing on the pеtitions on February 26, 1976, the sales were confirmed and orders of confirmation were issued by the court. On May 13, 1976, Etowah Bank filed a complaint for the deficiency against Dr. Parnell in the State Court of Cobb County seeking recovery of $11,000 principal plus interest and attorney fees. Dr. Parnell answered the complaint and filed a motion for summary judgment. Etowah Bank also filed a motion for summary judgment. Both motions were denied by the court on November 17, 1976, after a hearing. On November 18, 1976, Etowah Bank filed a second motion fоr summary judgment and Dr. Parnell filed an affidavit in opposition to it. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court entered an order on March 24,1977, granting summary judgment to Etowah Bank. Dr. Parnell appeals alleging three enumerations of error.
1. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. "On a motion for summary judgment the burden of establishing the nonexistence of any genuine issue of fact is upon the moving party and all doubts are to be resolved against the movant. The movant has that burden even as to issues uрon which the opposing party would have the trial burden, and the moving party’s papers are carefully scrutinized, while the оpposing party’s papers, if any, are treated with considerable indulgence.
[Cit.]” Ham v. Ham,
Appellant also complains that he was not served with notice to recover attorney fees; In his affidavit in opposition to appellee’s motion for summary judgment, appellant cоntends that he "... has never been served with process or other legal notice from Etowah Bank regarding any guaranty, surety, or оther evidence of indebtedness.” Attached to appellee’s complaint is the copy of a letter dated March 11, 1977, addressed to appellant titled "Notice of Attorney’s Fees.” At the bottom of the letter is a notation "Certified mail — return receipt requested.” However, no copy of the return receipt is attached. Included in the record is an affidаvit of appellee’s counsel "That on March 12,1976, a letter notifying Dr. R. Parks Parnell, Jr. of the impending suit, based upon his contract of guaranty and the intention to collect attorney fees, was deposited in the United States mail under the designation of "certified mail.” It is well established that "[w]hen it is shown that a letter was properly addressed, duly stamped, and mailed, a prima facie inference of fact may be drawn that it was received by the addressee.”
Burch v. Americus Grocery Co.,
2. In his second enumeration of error, appellant contends that appellee’s letter of March 11,1976, entitled "Notice of Attorney’s Fees” and attached to appellee’s *797 complaint does not comply with the provisions of Code Ann. § 20-506 and therefore does not authorize the lower court’s award оf attorney fees. An examination of the letter indicates that appellee lists a note ". . . dated December 13,1974, in the рrincipal sum of $38,000.00 due on May 24,1975 ...” as being in default. None of the four notes in the record, however, bears this date and thereforе the notice is insufficient as a matter of law as to one note dated December 30,1974, in the principal sum of $38,000 due on May 24,1975. Thе other three notes all contain the dates specified in the letter and the notice as to them is valid if the jury finds that appellant did in fact receive notice of appellee’s intent to collect attorney fees.
3. In his third enumeration of error, appellant contends that the court below erred in granting summary judgment for interest. There is no merit in this enumeration. Appellee’s calculations which were considered by the trial court in making the interest award are based upon provisions contained in all four notes.
Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part.