FOURTH D I VI SI ON BA RNES, P. J. , RA Y and M CM I LLI A N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M oti ons for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly re c e iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s October 2, 2015



# In t h e C o u rt o f Ap p e a l s o f Ge o r g i a

A15A1383. PATR IC K M ALLO Y CO M M UNITIES, LLC e t a l. v. C OM M UNITY & SOUTHER N B ANK.

B A R N E S , Pre siding Judge

. Pa tric k M a ll o y C om

m unitie s, LLC (“ PM C ” ) a

nd J. Pa tric k M a lloy , J r. a ppe a l
the tria l c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt in fa vor of C om m unity & Southe rn B a

n k (“ C SB ” ) on C SB ’ s c la im s for bre a c h of a prom issory note a nd gua ra nty

. The a

ppe lla nts

c onte nd tha t C SB fa ile d t o prove , through c o m pe te nt e vide nc e , tha t C S B h ad be e n

as s i g n ed the rights t o the note a nd gua ra nty by t he Fe d e ra l D e posit Insur an ce
C orpora tion (“ FDIC ” ), a s re c e ive r for the fa ile d ba nk tha t p re viously h e ld those de bt
instrum e nts. C onse que ntly , the a ppe lla nts c o nte nd tha t C SB fa ile d t o de m onstra te its

sta tus a s the re a l pa

rty in inte re st with a

u thority to e nforc e the note a nd gua ra nty

. The

a ppe lla nts furthe r a rgue tha t disc re pa n c ie s b e twe e n a n a ffida vit subm itte d by C SB a n d

a pa y m e nt history for the l oa

n a c c ount pre c lude d the g ra nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt as
to the a m ount of da

m a g e s owe d to C SB

.B e cau s e the unc ontrove rte d, c om pe te nt e vide nc e of re c ord de m onstra te tha t
C SB wa s the a ssigne e of t he note a nd gua

ra nty , we a ffirm t

he tria l c ourt’ s gra nt of

sum m a ry judgm e nt to C SB on its cl ai m th a t the a ppe lla nts we re lia

ble for bre a c h of
those de bt instrum e nts. Howe v e r, be c a use m a t e ria l disc re pa

nc ie s be twe e n the a ffida vit
subm itte d by C SB a nd the pa y m e nt history for the loa

n c re a t e a fa c tua l issue ove r the

a m ount of unpa id princ ipa l, inte re st, a nd c ontra c tua l at t o r n ey fe e s owe d on the note

a nd gua ra nty , we re v e rse the tria l c ourt’ s gra nt o f sum m a ry judgm e nt to C SB a s to the

a m ount of da

m a ge s.

“ [S] um m a ry judgm e nt is a

ppropria te whe n t he m o ving pa

rty c a n s how t ha t the re
is no ge nuine issue of m at er i al f a c t a nd t ha t the m ova

nt is e ntitle d t o judgm e nt a s a

m a tte r of la

w.” (Punc tua tion a nd footnote o m itte d.) C itrus Tow e r Boule v ard Imaging
C e nte r v

. Dav id S. O w e ns, MD, PC , 325 Ga

. App. 1, 1-2 (752 SE2d 74) (2013). Se e
OC GA § 9-11-56 (c ). “ On a ppe a l from a t

ria l c ourt’ s gra nt of sum

m a ry judgm e nt, we

c onduc t a d e n ovo re vie w, c onstruing a ll re a sona ble infe re nc e s in t

he l ight m ost
fa vora ble to t he nonm oving pa

rty .” (C ita

tion a nd punc tua t ion om i tte d.) B obic k v

. C ommunity & Southe rn Bank

, 321 Ga . App. 855, 856 (743 SE2d 518) (2013).
So vie we d, the re c ords shows tha t PM C wa s a re side ntia l re a l e s ta te de ve lope r.
O n J u l y 2 2 , 2008, i n c o nne c t ion with a loa n for the purc ha se a

nd de ve lopm e nt of a 2subdivision, PM C e nte re d into a c om m e rc ia l p rom issory note with First Na tiona l B a n k
of Ge orgia in the princ ipa l a m ount of $3,500,000, plus inte re st (the “ Note ” ). M a lloy , the sole m a n a ge r a n d m e m be r of PM C , ha d pre v iously signe d a n unlim i te d c om m e rc ia l

gua ra n ty in fa v o r o f Wes t Ge orgia Na tiona l B a nk, whic h l a te r m e rge d into First

Na tiona l B a

nk (the “ Gua

ra nty ” ). Unde r the Gua

ra nty , M a l loy wa s obliga

te d to re pa

y

a ll c urre nt or future de bts owe d by PM C to W e st Ge orgia Na tiona l B a nk a nd “ its

suc c e ssors a nd a ssigns.” Followi n g e xe c ution of the Note a n d Gua ra nty , the loa

n
proc e e ds we re re le a se d by First Na tiona l B a nk a

n d prope rly

disburse d.

In Ja nua ry 2010, First Na tiona l B a nk fa ile d a nd w a s c lose d by the Offic e of the
C om ptrolle r of the C urre n c y , a nd the FDIC w a s a p pointe d a s re c e ive r. On Ja nua ry 29, 2010, the F D I C , a c ting a s re c e i ve r, e nte re d into a Purc h a s e a n d Assum ption Agre e m e nt
unde r w hic h it tra nsfe rre d a sse ts of First Na tiona l B a nk t o C SB , i n cl u d i n g “ Loa ns”

owe d to or he ld by

the fa ile d ba

nk (the “ P& A Agre e m e nt” ).
The FDIC a s re c e ive r la t e r e xecu te d a n “ Assignm e nt of Se c urity Instrum e nts

a nd othe r Loa

n Doc um e nts” tha t wa s re c orde d in the de e d book re c o rds of C he roke e
C ounty (the “ Assignm e nt A g re e m e nt” ). Unde r t he Assignm e nt Agre e m e nt, the FDIC

a ssigne d a

nd tra nsfe rre d to C SB a ll

3rights, title , a nd inte re sts in a

nd to a ll those c e rta in M ortga ge s, Se c urity De e ds, De e ds to Se c ure De bt, D e e d s of Trust, Assignm e nts of R e nts a nd Le a se s, UC C -1 fina

nc ing sta te m e nts, judgm e nt lie ns, a nd a l l suc h othe r instrum e nts a nd se c u rity a gre e m e n ts s ecuring loa ns owne d by First Na tiona l B a nk of Ge o rgia a nd he ld of re c ord by First Na tiona l Ba nk of Ge orgia o r a ny of i ts pre de c e ssors (inc ludin g West Ge orgia Na tiona l B a nk whic h wa s m e rge d in t o First Na tiona l B a nk of G e orgia ) a s of Ja nua ry 2 9, 2010

. . . a nd a ll m odific a tions, e xte nsions, a m e ndm e nts a nd

r en ew al s t h er et o ( co l l ect i v el y, th e “S ecu r i t y I n s tr u m en t s ”) [ , ] TOGETHER with a ll of the unde rly i ng de bts de s c ribe d in s uc h Se c urity Instrum e nts.

The FDIC furthe r a ssigne d a nd tra nsfe rre d to C SB a ll rights, title a

n d inte re s ts in a nd to the prom issory note s, loa n doc um e nts
a nd a ll othe r inde bte dne ss se c ure d b y the Se c urity Instrum en ts , a s
e vide nc e d by re la te d p rom issory no t es , a ny a n d a ll loa n a gre e m e nts, ple dge s , s e c urity a gre em e n ts a nd UC C fina

nc i ng sta t e m e nts a nd a ll

m odific a tions, e xte n s ions, a m e ndm e n ts a nd re ne wa ls to sa id doc um e nts
a nd instrum en t s toge the r with a ny a nd a ll othe r loa n doc um e nts, title polic ie s a nd c a s ua lty insura n c e polic ie s e vide nc ing, se c uring or re la ting to a ny of the fore going a ll of whic h ha ve be e n de live re d

to . . . [C SB ]

.

In a c c orda

nc e with the P& A Agre e m e nt a nd the Assignm e nt Agre e m e nt, C SB c a m e into posse ssion of the Note a n d Gua ra nty

.

4PM C fa ile d to pa y a ll of the a m ounts d

ue unde r the Note , a nd M a lloy fa ile d to

m e e t his re pa

y m e nt o b liga

tions unde r t

he Gua ra nty

. C SB the n a c c e l e ra t e d the a m ounts
due an d s e n t a notic e of de fa u lt to PM C a nd M a lloy (he re ina fte r, the “ a ppe lla nts” ).
W he n the a

ppe lla nts fa ile d to c ure the de fa

u lt, C SB sue d the m for bre a c h of the Note

a nd Gua ra nty , 1 se e king to re c ove r unpa id princ ipa l, inte re st, la te fe e s, a n d a ttor n ey
fe e s
. The a

ppe lla nts a nswe re d a

nd a lle ge d, a m ong othe r things, t ha t C SB w a s not the

re a l pa rty in inte re st with a

uthority to e nforc e the Note a nd Gua ra nty

. Following disc ove ry , C SB m ove d for sum m a ry j udgm e nt. C SB a rgue d tha t it
ha d e s ta b lishe d i ts prim a fa c ie right to re c ove r unde r the Note a nd Gua ra nty , a nd tha t
the a ppe l la nts ha d fa ile d to c om e forwa rd with a ny e vide nc e in support of the ir

a ffirm a tive de fe nse s or t o ra ise a que stion of fa c t c ha lle nging the ba nk’ s right to

re c o ve r unpa id princ i pa l, inte re st, a nd a t torne y fe e s. 2 The a ppel l an t s o ppose d the

m otion, a rguing tha t C SB ha d not e sta blishe d tha t it wa s the a ssigne e of the Note a n d
Gua ra nty or prove n the a m ount of da m a g e s it wa s owe d unde r the l o an doc um e n ts.
Afte r c onduc t i ng a he a ring whe re the pa rtie s pre se n te d ora l a

rgum e nt, the tria l c ourt

1 C SB sue d PM C for bre a c h of two a dditiona l prom issory note s bu t d i d n o t m ove for sum

m a ry judgm e nt with re spe c t to the m
.
2 C SB did not m ove for sum m a ry judgm e nt on its c la im for unpa id l at e f ee s owe d unde r the Note a nd Gua ra nty

. 5gra n te d sum m a ry judgm e nt in fa vor o f C SB on its c la im s for bre a c h of the Note a n d
Gua ra nty a nd aw arde d the a m ount of unpa id p rinc ipa l, inte re st, a nd c o ntra c tua l

a ttorne y fe e s sought by

C SB in its m otion. This a p pe a l followe d

. 1. In two re la te d e num e ra tions of e rror, the a ppe lla n ts c onte nd tha t C SB wa s not

e ntitle d to sum

m a ry judgm e nt bec a

use it fa ile d t o e sta

blish, through a dm issible

e vide nc e , tha t it ha d be e n a ssigne d the N ote a n d Gua ra nty by the FDIC a s re c e ive r for
First Na tiona l B a nk, a nd thus fa ile d to de m onstra te its sta tus a s the re a l pa

rty in
inte re s t. 3 W e disa gre e
.

“ Eve ry a c tion sha ll be prose c ute d in the na m e of the r eal pa rty in i nte re st.”
OC GA § 9-11-17 (a ). Se e Gre e nste in v

. Bank o f Ozark s , 326 Ga

. App. 648, 6 5 0 (2) (757 SE2d 254) (2014). And, unde r the la w of c ontra c ts,
the doc trine of privity of c ontra c t re quire s tha t o nly pa rtie s to a c ontra c t
m a y bring suit t o e nforc e it. A pa rty m a y a ssign t o a nothe r a c o ntra c tua l right to c olle c t pa

y m e nt, inc luding t

he right to sue to en f

o r ce t he right,

3 B e c a use C SB file d its m otion for sum m a ry judgm e nt in June 2013, Ge orgia ’ s re vise d Evide nce Co d e a pplie s to the e vide ntia

ry issue s ra i se d in this c a se
. Se e G a
. La ws 2011, p. 99,§ 101 (re vise d Evide n c e C ode “ sha ll be c o m e e ffe c tive on Ja nua ry 1, 2013, a nd s ha ll a

pply to a ny m otion m a de or he a ring o r tria l c om m e nc e d o n or a fte r suc h da te ” ); Robe rts v

. C

ommunity & Southe rn Bank , 331 G a
. A p p
. 3 6 4 , 3 69 (2), n. 2 (771 SE2d 68) (2015).

6a nd the a ssignm e nt m ust be in w riting i n o r d er for the c o ntra c tua l right to be e n forc e a

ble by t he a ssigne e
. (C ita tion a nd punc tua tion om i t te d.) Bobic k , 321 Ga . App. a t 859 (2).

In support o f its m otion for s um m a ry ju d g m en t , CSB subm itte d the a m e nde d

a ffida v it of John H ar v e y , a C SB e m ploy e e who w a s a

ppointe d a s a n a ttorne y in fa c t by t he FDIC , whic h a

uthoriz e d him to e x e c ute a ssignm e nt d o c um e nts tha t e vide nc e d
the s a le a nd tra

nsfe r of a sse ts of First Na tiona l, inc luding a ll loa ns he ld by the fa ile d
ba nk, to C SB pursua

nt to the P& A Agre e m e nt. Ha rve y sta te d t ha t the Note a

n d
Gua ra nty ha d be e n a ssigne d a nd tra nsfe rre d to C SB b y the FDIC , in its c a paci t y a s

re c e ive r, pursua

nt to the P& A Agre e m e nt a nd the Assignm e n t Agre e m e nt. Atta c h e d

a s e xhibits to the a ffida vit we re the L im ite d Powe r of Attorne y gra nte d to H a rve y by
the FDIC a s re c e ive r, the P& A Agre e m e n t , a nd the Assignm e n t Agre e m e nt.
C SB a lso subm itte d the a ffida vit of Pa tric k Dowling, a “ Se nior W orkout Spe c ia list for the R e solution W orkout Group” w ith C SB who wa s fa m i lia r with C SB ’ s
bo oks a nd re c ords a

nd m a inta ine d its loa

n file s re la te d to the pre se nt c a se
. Dowling

sta te d tha t al l t h e b u sine ss re c ords a ssoc i a te d with the Note a nd Gua ra n ty ha d be e n

tra nsfe rre d a nd de live re d to C SB by the FDIC , a s re c e ive r for First Na tiona l B a nk, a n d
ha d b e e n obta ine d a nd m a inta i ne d by C SB a s pa rt of t he re gula r c ourse of its b usine ss.
7Dowling furthe r sta te d tha t the o r i g i n al s of t

he N ote a nd Gua

ra nty , c opie s of whic h

we re a tta c he d to his a ffida vit, we re c urre ntly in the posse ssion of C SB

. C onte nding tha t C SB fa ile d to prove through c om pe te nt e v ide nc e tha t it wa s the

a ssigne e of the Note a nd Gua ra nty , the a

ppe lla nts m a i nta in t

ha t the tria l c ourt should
ha ve d isre ga

rde d the P& A Agre e m e nt a nd t he Assignm e nt Agre e m e nt b e c a use those
doc um e nts c onstitute d he a rsa y , a nd Ha rve y fa ile d in his a ffida vit t o la y a pro pe r
founda tion for the ir a dm ission unde r the busine ss re c ord e xc e ption to he ar s ay. Se e
OC GA § 24-8-803 (6) (busine ss re c ord e xc e ption). W e disa gre e
.

“ Adm issibility of e vide nc e on m otion for sum m a ry judgm e nt is gove rne d by the
rule s re la ting to form a nd a dm issibility of e v i de nc e ge ne ra lly .” (C ita tion a n d

punc tua t ion om itte d.) Maloof v

. MARTA , 330 Ga

. App. 763, 765 (1) (769 SE2d 174) (2015). “ All h e a rsa y e vide nc e , unsupporte d c onc lusions, a nd the like , m ust b e stric k e n

or e l im ina te d from c onside ra tion in a m otion for sum m a ry judgm e nt.” (Footnote

om i tte d.) Lile

s v . Inne rw ork

, 279 Ga . App. 352, 353 (1) (631 SE2d 408) (2006). W e

w i ll not disturb a tria l c ourt’ s ruling on the a dm issibility of a n a lle ge d h ear s ay
doc um e nt a

bse nt a n a buse of disc re tion. Maloof , 330 Ga . App. a

t 765 (1).
The tria l c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion in c onside ring the P& A Agre e m e nt

a nd the Assignm e nt Agre e m e n t be c a use ne ithe r c onstitute d he a rsa y
. “ ‘ He a rsa y ’ m e a ns 8a sta

te m e nt, othe r tha

n one m a de by the de c la ra n t wh i le te s tify ing a t the tria l or
he a ring, offe re d in e vide nc e to prove the truth of the m a t te r a sse rte d.” (Footnote

om i tte d.) Blue v

. He mmans , 327 Ga

. App. 3 53, 358 (1) (759 SE2d 72) (2014) (quoting
OC GA § 24-8-801 (c )). B ut “ [a ] sta te m e nt tha t ha s le ga l c onse que nc e s inde pe nde nt of
i t s t r u t h o r fa l sity i s c o n side re d a ‘ ve rba l a c t’ a nd i s not he a rsa y whe n those leg al

c onse q ue nc e s a re re l e va

nt or m a te ria l to the c a se
. T he sim p l e st e x a m

p l e i s a n
out-of-c ourt sta

te m e nt e sta

blishing or de fining the te rm s of a c ontra c t .” (Footnote s

om i tte d.) Pa

ul S. M ilic h, G eo r g i a Rule s of Evide nc e § 17:6 a t 620-621 (2014-2015

e d.). Se e Dane

s v

. Roge rs , 3 2 4 Ga. A p p
. 504, 507-508 (3) (751 SE2d 135) (2013); Hampton Island v

. A sse t Holding C o. 5 , 320 Ga

. A pp. 880, 8 82 (1) (a ) (740 SE2d 859) (2013); Stubbs v

. Dubois , 3 06 Ga

. App. 171, 173 & n
. 5 (702 SE2d 32) (2010).

B e c a use the P& A Agre e m e nt a nd the Assignm e nt Agre e m e nt d e fine the te rm s of the

c ontra c tua l re la tionship be twe e n the FDIC a s re c e ive r a nd C SB , the do cu m en ts

c onstitute “ ve rba l a c ts” a nd a re not he a rsa y
. Se e id. The tria l c ourt thus c om m itte d n o

e rror in c onside ring those doc um e nts.
T h e a ppe l l a nts a lso c onte nd tha t the tria l c ourt e rre d in c onside ring t h e

sta te m e nts m a d e by Ha rve y in his a ffida vit re gar d i n g the FDIC ’ s a s signm e nt of the
Note a nd Gua ra n ty to C SB

. T he a

ppe lla nts e m pha siz e tha t Ha rve y wa s not a ppointe d
9a s a n a ttorne y i n fa c t for the FDIC until 2013, but the a l le ge d a ssignm e nt of the Note

a nd G ua ra nty oc c urre d in 2010. B e c a use H a rve y wa s n ot a

ppointe d a s a n

a ttorne y in
fa c t for the FDIC u ntil a fte r t he a ssignm e nt, t

he a p pe llan t s ar g ue t h a t he la c k e d

pe rsona l knowle dge of t he assignm e nt a nd tha t the t

ria l c ourt thus should ha ve
disre ga rde d his sta

te m e nts re ga

rding the a s signm e nt in his a ffida v it. [W ] hile a sta

te m e nt in an af

fida vit tha t it is ba se d upon pe rsona l knowle dge i s ge n e ra lly s uffic ie nt t o m e e t the re quire m e nt tha t a ffida vits be m a de upon suc h k n o w l ed ge , if it a ppe a rs t ha t a ny portion o f the

a ffida vit wa s not m a d e upon the a ffia nt’ s p er s o n a l knowle dge , or i f it doe s not a ffirm a tive ly a

ppe a r tha t it was so m a de , tha t portion is t o be disre ga rde d in c onside ring the a ffida vit in c onne c tion with the m otion for

sum m a ry judgm e nt.
(C ita tion a nd punc tua tion om i t te d). Gre e n ste in , 326 Ga . App. a t 651 (2). B ut e ve n if
the tria l c ourt should ha ve disre ga rde d Ha rve y ’ s sta

te m e nts in his a ffida vit re ga rding
the a ssignm e nt for la c k of pe rsona l k nowle dge , se e Thomas v

. State Bank & Trust C o

. , 330 Ga

. App. 274, 276-277 (1) (765 SE2d 443) (2014) (phy sic a l pre c e de nt only ), the

e rror wa s ha

rm le ss be c a

use the o the r c om

pe te n t e vide nc e of re c ord d e m onstra te d tha t
C SB wa s the a ssigne e o f the Note a n d Gua ra nty a s a m a tte r of la

w. S ee, e. g
. , Mille r Grading C

ontrac t ors v . Ga. Fe de ral Sav

. & Loan Assoc

. , 247 Ga

. 730, 734 (3) (279

10SE2d 442) (1981) (noting tha t , a t sum m a ry judgm e nt sta ge of the proc e e dings, “ e rror
whic h is ha

rm le ss will not be

c a use for re ve rsa l” ).

It is u ndispute d tha t First Na tiona l B a nk fa ile d a nd tha t the FDIC wa s a ppointe d

a s re c e ive r for the fa ile d ba nk w ith a uthority to tra n sfe r a nd a ssign its a sse ts to a nothe r
ba nk, inc luding its l o a n port f olio. Se e 12 USC § 1 821 (d) (2) (G) (i) (II) (gra nting
FDIC powe r a s re c e ive r to “ tra nsfe r a ny a sse t or lia

bility of the institution in de fa ult (inc luding a sse ts a nd lia biliti es as soc ia te d with a ny trust busine ss) without a ny

a pprova l , a ssignm e nt, or c o n se nt with re spe c t to suc h tra nsfe r.” ). And C SB subm itte d
doc um e nts re fle c t ing a c o m ple t e c ha in of a s signm e nt for the tra nsfe r a nd a ssignm e nt

a t issue , inc luding the Note , t he G ua ra nty , the P& A Agre e m e nt, whic h liste d the FDIC

a s re c e ive r for First Na tiona l B an k an d a ssigne d “ L oa ns” of First Na tiona l B a nk to
C SB , a nd the re c orde d A ssignm e nt Agre e m e nt i n whic h the FDIC a s re c e ive r for First

Na tiona l B a nk a ssigne d the prom issory note s a nd a ll othe r loa n-re la te d doc um e nts of
First Na tiona l B a nk to C SB

. 4 Furthe rm o re , C SB subm itte d the a ffida vit of Dowling,

4 The a p pe lla nts a rgue tha t C SB ha s not s hown a c om ple t e c ha in of title be c a

use the Gua ra nty wa s e xe c ute d by M a lloy in fa vor of W e st Ge orgia Na tiona l B a nk ra the r tha n First Na tiona l B a nk. The a ppe lla nts’ a rgum e nt is without m e rit. The “ l e nde r” o n the Gua ra nty is ide ntifie d a s W e st Ge orgia Na tiona l B a nk a nd “ its suc c e ssors a n d
a ssigns,” a nd the Assignm e nt Agre e m e n t e x pre ssly tra nsfe rre d a nd a ssigne d to C SB
a ll note s a nd othe r l o an d o cum e nts he ld by First Na tiona l B a n k “ or a ny of its
11C SB ’ s c u stodia n of the loa

n file s a t issue , who sta

t e d tha t C SB ha d a c quire d the Note

a nd Gua ra nty from the FDIC a s re c e ive r for First N a tiona l B a nk a nd c u rre n tly ha d the origina l loa

n doc um e nts in its posse ssion.
This c om

bine d e vide nc e , which w as unc ontrove rte d by the a ppe lla n ts,

e sta blishe d a va lid a ssignm e nt of the Note a nd Gua ra nty to C SB a s a m a tte r of la w. Se e
Bobic k , 321 G a
. App. a t 860 (2); He ritage Co n s t r

. Co r p. v

. State Bank & Trust C o

. , 316 Ga

. App. 25, 27 (728 SE2d 703) (2012); K e n s i n g ton Partne rs v

. B e al Bank
N e v ada , 311 Ga

. App. 196, 197 (1) (715 SE2d 491) (2011). Thus, e ve n if the

sta te m e nts re ga

rding the a ssignm e nt in Ha rve y ’ s a ff i d a v it should h a ve be e n
disre ga rde d, the tria l c o urt did no t er r in g ra nting sum m a ry judgm e nt to C SB on its

c la im s for bre a c h o f the Note a n d Gua ra n ty

. Se e id. C om

pa re Thomas , 330 G a
. App.

a t 276-278 (1) (re ve rsing gra nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt in fa

vor of ba nk whe re a ffia nt
la c ke d pe rsona l k

nowle dge o f the a ssignm e nt, and t he ba nk fa ile d to subm it doc um e nts

re fle c t ing a c om

ple te c ha in of a ssignm e nt for the note a t i ssu e , inc luding the

a ssignm e nt a gre e m e nt).

pre d e c e ssors (inc luding W e st Ge orgi a N at i on a l B a nk whic h wa s m e rge d into First Na tiona l B a nk of Ge orgia ).”
122. The a ppe lla n ts a lso a rgue tha t t h e tria l c ourt e rre d in gra n ting sum m a ry judgm e nt to C SB a s to t

he a m ount o f d a m a g e s due u nde r the Note a nd G u a ra nty

. W e

a gre e
.

“ Wh er e a pa

rty sue s for da m a ge s , it ha s the burde n of proof o f showing t h e

a m ount o f loss in a m a nne r in whic h the tria l judge c a n c a lc ula te the a m o unt of the loss
with a re a sona

ble de gre e of c e rta inty .” N e lson v

. Hamilton State Bank , 331 G a
. App. 419, 4 21 (2) (771 SE2d 113) (2015), quoting My e rs v

. F i rst C itize ns Bank & Trust C

o

. , 324 Ga. A p p. 2 9 3, 2 96 (2) (750 SE2d 378) (2013). Thus, in a suit to e nforc e a
prom issory note or gua

ra nty , “ the pla intiff ha s the b u rde n of proving tha t the de fe nda nt
is inde bte d to him i n a de finite a nd c orre c t a m ount.” (C ita t ion a nd punc tua tion

om i tte d.) Id.
To prove the a m o unt of its da m a ge s , C SB re lie d upon the pre viously disc usse d

a ffida v it of Dowling, a ba nk e m ploy e e who wa s fa m ilia

r wit h CSB ’ s books a

n d

re c o rds a nd m a inta ine d the re le va

nt loa n file s. Dowling sta

te d:
As of M a y 22, 2 013, [the a

ppe lla nts] owe [C SB ] the following a m ounts
o f $1,485,845.67 in princ ipa l a n d $ 315,943.20 i n inte re st. The inte re s t
c ontinue s to a c c rue a t the ra te o f $154.78 p e r da y , a dditiona lly ; [C SB ] is

e ntitle d t o re c ove r fifte e n pe rc e nt of the o utsta n ding princ ipa l a nd inte re st
a s a ttorne y s’ fe e s, whic h e qua l [] $270,268.33.

13To support his da m a ge s c a lc ula tions, Dowling re lie d upon the te rm s of the Note a n d

a pa y m e nt history for t h e l o a n from July 11, 2006 to M a y 22, 2013, 5 both of whic h

we re a tta c he d to his a ffida vit a s e xhibits.
Howe v e r, a re vie w of the pa y m e nt history a tta c he d to Dowling’ s a ffida vit

re ve a ls c e rta in m a te ria l disc re pa nc ie s tha t a re n ot e xpla ine d. Spe c ific a lly , D owling in
his a ffida vit s ta te s tha t i n te re st a c c rue s on t he N ote a t the ra te of $ 154.78 pe r da y , but
the pa y m e nt history ide ntifie s the pe r die m inte re st ra te a s $163.68. M ore o v e r, while Dowling sta

te s in his a ffida

vit tha t the princ i pa l ba la

nc e is $ 1 , 4 8 5 ,845.67 a s of M a y 22, 2013, the pa

y m e n t history of t h at d at e sta te s t ha t the princ ipa l ba la

nc e is $1,571,345.67.

W hile the re m a

y be a n e xpla

na tion for the se disc re pa

nc ie s, C SB d oe s not offe r

one , e ve n though i t be a rs the burde n of proving its da m a ge s i n a d e finite a nd c e rta in

a m ount. N

e lson , 331 Ga

. App. a t 421 (2). And be c a use the disc re pa

nc ie s a re m a te ria l

to the a m ount of u npa i d p r i n ci p al , inte re st, a nd c ontra c tua l a t torne y fe e s (whic h a re

c a lc ula t e d a s a pe rc e nta g e o f t h e p r inc ipa l a nd inte re st) owe d by the a ppe l la nts, we

c onc lude tha t m a te ria l i ssue s o f fa c t e xist a s to the a m ount of d a m a g e s. C onse que ntly ,

5 T he Note indic a te s o n i ts fa c e th at i t w as t he re n e w a l of a prior c om m e rc ia l note

. 14the tria l c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt to C SB a s to the a m ount o f da m a ge s owe d
unde r the Note a nd Gua

ra nty m ust be re ve rse d

. Se e Thomason v

. FIA C a rd Sv c s., N

.A. , 330 Ga

. App. 603, 605 (768 SE2d 785) (2015) (sum m a ry judgm e n t ina

ppropria te in light of inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n a ffida vit a nd the e xhibits a t ta c he d the re to); C irc le K
Store s, Inc

. v

. T. O

. H. Assoc

. , 318 Ga

. App. 753, 759 (3) (734 SE2d 752) (20 12) (disc re pa nc ie s b e twe e n figure s shown on invoic e a nd in le a se c re a te d ge nuine issue of

m a te ria l fa c t ove r a m ount due under le a se ); J ac k son v

. C a v a lry Portfolio Sv c s. , 314
Ga

. App. 175, 177 (723 S E 2 d 475) (2012) (disc re p a nc y be twe e n a c c ount sta te m e nt a n d

a ffida v it ove r the a m ount of unpa id ba la nc e t ha t w a s due pre c lude d gra nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt to c re ditor). 6

J udgme nt affirme d in part; re v e rse d in part. Ray and Mc Millian, J J ., c onc ur
.

6 C om pa re Loc k w ood v

. Fe d. De

posit Ins. C

orp. , 330 Ga

. App. 513, 517-518 (2) (b) (767 SE2d 8 29) (2014) (re fe re nc e to “ una pplie d pa y m e n ts” a nd “ una

pplie d c re dits” in p a y m e n t re c ords, without m ore , wa s insuffic ie nt to c re a te ge n uine issue of m a te ria l fa c t a s to a m ount of unpa id princ ipa l , whe re ba nk re c ords othe rwise showe d “ a de finite
a m ount outsta

n ding on the princ ipa l b a la nc e ” ); Bogart v

. W

isc onsin Institute

for Torah Study , 321 Ga

. App. 492, 495-496 (3) (739 SE2d 465) (20 13 ) ( s um m a ry judgm e nt prope rly gra n te d to c re ditor whe re the a lle ge d i nc onsis t en ci es in the ple a dings a n d
e vide nc e we re not m a te ria l to the a m ount due on the a c c ount).
15