Court Opinion

ID: 9579445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:55:15.248643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:30.852026
License: Public Domain

Carley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority that the trial court erred in determining that the procedure utilized in this case “did not comply with the requirement of reporting the foreclosure sale to the judge.” However, I believe that the trial court’s order is erroneous in another respect and while that error is ostensibly one of form, it could have extensive substantive implications. I refer to the fact that, based upon what we have found to be an erroneous conclusion that the *70confirmation application was not timely reported to the superior court judge, the trial court “confirmed the sale,” but purported to deny the applicant mortgagee the right to seek a deficiency judgment in a subsequent proceeding. This would have been error even had the trial court been correct in finding that the procedure utilized in this case did not comply with the applicant’s obligation to “within 30 days after the sale, report the sale to the judge of the superior court of the county in which the land is located for confirmation and approval...” OCGA § 44-14-161 (a) (Code Ann. § 67-1503). If the procedure utilized had been ineffective to comply with the statute — as was the case in connection with the “filing” with the clerk in Goodman v. Vinson, 142 Ga. App. 420 (236 SE2d 153) (1977) — the correct disposition of the case by the trial judge would be, as in Goodman, the dismissal of the petition “because appellants failed to report the sale to [the superior court judge] within thirty days of the sale . . .” Goodman v. Vinson, supra, 421.
If, indeed, an application for confirmation is not presented either within the time provided or to the person provided under OCGA § 44-14-162 (Code Ann. § 67-1506), the application must be dismissed and no consideration of the merits thereof is proper or appropriate. The issue of a deficiency judgment in favor of the mortgagee is one cognizable by a court having jurisdiction and venue over an action in personam against the mortgagor after successful confirmation of a foreclosure sale and is not relevant to the confirmation proceeding itself. “ [A] confirmation proceeding held in accordance with [OCGA § 44-14-161 (Code Ann. § 67-1503 et seq.)] is extremely narrow in scope — the issues in such proceedings being the evaluation of real estate sold under power as to the date of its sale and the regularity of that sale.” Alexander v. Weems, 157 Ga. App. 507, 508 (277 SE2d 793) (1981). Thus, when based upon proper findings of facts supported by sufficient evidence, the superior court finds that a foreclosure sale should be “confirmed,” the judge has exhausted his power and authority within the context of those proceedings. It appearing from the record in this case that the evidence supports the trial judge’s determination that the sale should be confirmed, upon remand, the judgment of the trial court should so provide and should not deal in any way with the issue of a deficiency judgment.