Court Opinion

ID: 9565343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:19:25.019914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:34.252167
License: Public Domain

Clark, Judge,
dissenting.
"Speak for yourself, Sol.” That personal paraphrase of the Puritan Priscilla’s reply to John Alden’s plea in behalf of Miles Standish fits this dissent.11 find myself unable to agree with the construction of the statute by the majority as set forth in the third division. I would be lacking in candor if I failed to recognize my disagreement stems from my personal philosophy and private predilection probably created by reason of having entered the practice of law in 1930.
Legally, these views are fortified by consideration of the purpose and intent of the General Assembly of 1935 in the enactment of this statute. I am particularly impressed by the legislative use of the words, "for good cause shown,” in lieu of the usual phrase, "in the discretion of the court.”
Our court noted in Thompson v. Maslia, 127 Ga. App. *236758, 762 (195 SE2d 238) that the statute was enacted at a time when "our country was emerging from a disastrous depression during which many mortgagors had not only lost their property through foreclosure but were forced to bankrupt against deficiency judgments after foreclosure sales in which mortgagees usually acquired the property at nominal or depressed bids.” The writer stated in his dissent therein at p. 767 that the purpose of the statute was to prevent "unfortunate mortgagors from being saddled with unwarranted deficiency judgments in addition to loss of the mortgaged property.” Accordingly, I am of the belief that construction of the statute must be in favor of the mortgagor. This would be in conformance with the statutory intent to insure fair treatment of the borrower and to impose upon the mortgage lender an affirmative duty to show to the court that the property brought its "true market value” at the foreclosure sale.
In 1584 Sir Edward Coke2 wrote in Heydon’s case, 3 Co. Rep. 7a., 7b., 76 Eng. Rep. 637,638: "[F]or the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law,) four things are to be discerned and considered: — 1st. What was the common law before the making of the Act; 2nd, What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide; 3rd, What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth; And, 4th. The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of all the Judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy. . .”
This Common Law commandment is succinctly stated in the first sentence of Code § 102-102 (9): "In all interpretations, the courts shall look diligently for the intention of the General Assembly, keeping in view, at all times, the old law, the evil, and the remedy.”
Application of this rule leads to one conclusion: a *237resale may be ordered only when the "good cause” consists of some situation beneficial to the mortgagor. This differs from "sound legal discretion” which is the measurement generally applied in confirmation of judicial sales. See Wachovia Mtg. Co. v. Moore, 138 Ga. App. 101 (225 SE2d 460) and cits. That is to say: the question of whether the price at which the property is knocked off to the highest bidder represents its "true market value” comes within the doctrine of "legal discretion”; but the judicial declaration requiring another sale can be solely on the basis of a showing of "good cause.”
"Good cause” would depend on special situations. Illustrative examples of "good cause” could be matters such as an intervening announcement of a new industry for the community or confirmation of a highway change affecting the specific property or a change in local economic conditions. Another example of "good cause” would be occurrence of some event affecting attendance of prospective bidders at the public sale. The writer recalls such an occasion in Chatham County arising from reports of an approaching hurricane.
In the present appeal the trial judge ruled "that plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that said property brought its fair market value on the date of sale.” That decision should have concluded the judgment. The lender bank had already had its opportunity to make out its case and failed; it should not be given another chance. Generally, in judicial proceedings, a case is ended when a judgment is reached by the trial court subject to appeal. Why should a mortgagee be given another chance to make out its case* when that would be contrary to the statute’s purpose of aiding the mortgagor? Particularly in the light of the fact that "The basic equity rule is that only one foreclosure of a mortgage will be allowed, and the same rule applies to security deeds.” Pindar, Ga. Real Estate Law, § 21-59.
An added argument for reversal lies in the fact that the reason given by the trial judge does not amount to "good cause.” In fact, it is submitted that it should be considered an abuse of discretion to order another sale on the basis that "plaintiff acted in good faith by having said property appraised before the sale.” A lender who *238forecloses is under a legal duty to conduct the sale in good faith. Sullivan v. Federal Farm Mtg. Corp., 62 Ga. App. 402, 405 (8 SE2d 126). "Good faith” is not "good cause.” See also the citations listed in footnote 402 at p. 762 of Pindar’s Ga. Real Estate Law for instances where the mortgagee was ruled guilty of conduct calculated to chill the bidding or depress the prices offered.
I recognize that the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has ruled contrary to this position in United States v. The Golf Club Co., 435 F2d 9. Since, however, that court’s decisions are persuasive but not controlling upon us I can only state my conviction that it erred in its conclusion that the words "for good cause shown” express "the discretionary nature of this power.” This is contrary to the intent and purpose of statutory construction contained in § 102-102 (9) herein quoted. "Good cause” is a standard or measurement device; it does not carry the connotation of discretion.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen and Judge Stolz join in this dissent.

 Justice Samuel Blashford served on the United States Supreme Court from 1882 to 1893 without a single dissent. This uniqueness may explain why he is unknown to today’s lawyers.

 Bench and bar benefits by reading "The Lion and The Throne” by Catherine Drinker Bowen, a biography of "the greatest common law lawyer of all time.” (The quotation is from Encyclopedia Britannica.)