GA Code § 44-14-162.1 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 44 - Property|Chapter 14 - Mortgages, Conveyances to Secure Debt, and Liens|Article 7 - Foreclosure|Part 1 - In General|§ 44-14-162.1. Sales Made on Foreclosure Under Power of Sale - Mailing of Notice to Debtor - "Debtor" Defined

 As used in Code Sections 44-14-162.2 through 44-14-162.4, the term "debtor" means the grantor of the mortgage, security deed, or other lien contract. In the event the property encumbered by the mortgage, security deed, or lien contract has been transferred or conveyed by the original debtor, the term "debtor" shall mean the current owner of the property encumbered by the debt, if the identity of such owner has been made known to and acknowledged by the secured creditor prior to the time the secured creditor is required to give notice pursuant to Code Section 44-14-162.2.   (Ga. L. 1981, p. 834, § 2.)   Law reviews.   - For note, "Opportunity Costs: Nonjudicial Foreclosure and the Subprime Mortgage Crisis in Georgia," see 25 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 1205 (2009).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS    The definition of "debtor" in O.C.G.A. § 44-162.1 does not apply to O.C.G.A. § 44-14-161. Hill v. Moye, 221 Ga. App. 411, 471 S.E.2d 910 (1996).   Right to notice other than by advertisement.    - Only the property owner was entitled to receive any notice of the initiation of foreclosure proceedings other than by advertisement. Breitzman v. Heritage Bank, 180 Ga. App. 171, 348 S.E.2d 713 (1986).   No confirmation where no indication of proper advertising or notification.    - Where no evidence appeared in the transcript of the hearing on the confirmation petition tending to indicate either that the sale was properly advertised or that the landowner was properly notified of the sale, the judgment of confirmation must be reversed. Martin v. Federal Land Bank, 173 Ga. App. 142, 325 S.E.2d 787 (1984), aff'd, 254 Ga. 610, 333 S.E.2d 370 (1985).   Notice of foreclosure held sufficient.    - Trial court did not err in granting a bank and a law firm summary judgment in a former husband's action alleging that they wrongfully foreclosed on property that the husband obtained from his former wife via a divorce decree because the bank and law firm provided the wife with notice of the impending foreclosure sale as required under the terms of the security deed and O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2; because the husband did not obtain any legal interest in the property until the quitclaim deed from his wife was filed, he was not the owner of the property at the time the bank and law firm were required to provide notice of the foreclosure sale. Farris v. First Fin. Bank, 313 Ga. App. 460, 722 S.E.2d 89 (2011).   Requirements for notice to debtor.    - Trial court did not err in finding the lending company failed to comply with the foreclosure notice provisions of O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2 because the company's attorney failed to offer any reasonable explanation as to why, despite knowing that the debtor was the record owner of the properties, the company only sent the notices to the predecessor in interest, and its agent, and the lending company was not entitled to equitable estoppel despite actual notice to the debtor. DIP Lending I, LLC v. Cleveland Avenue Properties, LLC, 345 Ga. App. 155, 812 S.E.2d 532 (2018).   Damages for wrongful foreclosure without notice.    - In a suit brought by a purchaser seeking damages for wrongful foreclosure of certain real property after two foreclosure sales, the trial court erred in granting the second foreclosing bank attorney fees under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14, based on frivolous litigation, as that second bank had knowledge of the purchaser's acquisition of the property via the first foreclosure, therefore, the purchaser's suit did not lack substantial justification as to the second bank and the second bank's failure to provide proper notice of the sale to the purchaser. Roylston v. Bank of Am., N.A., 290 Ga. App. 556, 660 S.E.2d 412 (2008).   Trial court erred by failing to confirm sale.    - Trial court erred by denying a creditor's petition to confirm the foreclosure sale of six townhouses because the sale satisfied applicable notice and advertisement requirements and the uncontradicted evidence showed that the townhouses did sell for at least fair market value. RBC Real Estate Fin., Inc. v. Winmark Homes, Inc., 318 Ga. App. 507, 736 S.E.2d 117 (2012).    Cited in TKW Partners, LLC v. Archer Capital Fund, L.P., 302 Ga. App. 443, 691 S.E.2d 300 (2010).