Court Opinion

ID: 9588850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:39:16.641143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:20.110825
License: Public Domain

Evans, Judge,
dissenting.
Plaintiff sued defendant for a deficiency judgment after foreclosing on personal property under mortgage, and the sale of which was not enough to satisfy the entire indebtedness.
Defendant answered and alleged that there had been a mutual temporary disregard of the contract, as to the time when payments of the instalments might be made, *745and that as plaintiff had not given notice that it intended to rely on the exact date of payments as provided for in the original contract, that defendant had the right to rely on plaintiffs acquiescence in accepting the late payments of instalments; and that same in effect amounted to a novation of the original contract.
Plaintiff pointed to certain language in its contract which it contended foreclosed defendant from pleading a novation. The language relied on is as follows: "It is agreed that the waiver or indulgence of any default or the failure to exercise any right hereunder shall not be construed as an agreement to modify the terms of this instrument or to operate as a waiver of any subsequent default. It is further agreed that this instrument contains the entire agreement of the parties and that it may be modified or altered only in writing.”
But Code § 20-116 provides where parties depart from the terms of the original contract and pay or receive money under such departure, before the original date of payment may be insisted upon by the creditor, reasonable notice must be given to the debtor of the creditor’s intention to insist upon payments at the time as provided in said written contract. No such notice was given him. It seems to be plaintiffs contention that it could write words into the contract which would prevent the application of the principle of novation.
But the language relied on by plaintiff flies directly into the face of the public policy of this state, and especially into the face of Code § 20-116. Our public policy is made up of our statutes, among other things. Collett v. State, 131 Ga. App. 411, 422 (206 SE2d 70).
Therefore, defendant had the right to plead and rely upon novation, and the trial judge did not err in his ruling in favor of defendant. This case should be affirmed.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen concurs in this dissent.