FOSKEY v. DOCKERY et al., 241 Ga. 26, 243 S.E.2.d 70 (1978)
Linked as:
Summary
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Summary
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Text
Fred L. Belcher, Elsie H. Griner, for appellant.
This is a quiet title suit, brought by the administrator of the estate of William Harrison Foskey, Sr. It concerns 36 acres of land bought in 1968 by J. Laddie Boatright who gave a deed to secure debt to the Federal Land Bank of Columbia. Boatright then sold the property to William Harrison Foskey, Jr., the appellant, and J. C. Roderick subject to the prior lien. Foskey Jr. and Roderick gave security deeds to Foskey Sr. and Boatright, stipulating that the former's lien was superior to the latter's. A deed to secure debt was later given by Foskey Jr. and Roderick to Furman Greer and Roderick granted an additional security deed in his one-half interest to Curtis Farrar and others.
The trial court adopted the findings of the special master, and decreed title to be in Foskey Jr. and J. C. Roderick subject to the liens to the Federal Land Bank of Columbia, Foskey Sr., Boatright, Greer and the Curtis Farrar group in that order of priority. The unconsummated foreclosure and settlement agreement were declared void and Foskey Jr.'s counterclaim of parol gift of the land from his father was dismissed for failure to present a claim. The trial court ordered a new foreclosure sale. Foskey Jr. appeals. We affirm.
1. In his first and sixth enumerations of error, Foskey Jr. asserts that his demand for a jury trial was timely and, therefore, the special master had no authority to decide the fact issue raised by his counterclaim. We agree that the demand for a jury trial, made before the case was heard by the special master, was timely. Thornton v. Reb Properties, Inc.,
In his counterclaim, Foskey Jr. alleges that his father had given him the property by parol gift. " 'To constitute a valid parol gift of land, it is necessary not only that the donee should take possession under the gift, but that he should make valuable improvements thereon upon the faith of the donor's promise, or declared intention, to make the gift.' Hodgson v. Hodgson,
2. Enumerations of error 2-5, 7, 8 and 10 contest various rulings as to the foreclosure and other agreements made in the course of this unconsummated transaction. We do not see, and we have not been shown, how Foskey Jr. has been harmed by the trial court's rulings. Foskey Jr.'s half interest has been reinstated subject to the outstanding liens and a new foreclosure ordered. Absent a showing of harm, we will not reverse the judgment of the trial court.
3. We do not here consider Foskey Jr.'s ninth enumeration of error, since it was raised for the first time on appeal.
Farrar, Farrar & Evans, William V. Evans, Williams & Starling, Lee Williams, for appellees.
1978
Sponsored links
This document cites
- Supreme Court of Georgia - BARFIELD v. HILTON., 238 Ga. 150, 231 S.E.2.d 755 (1976)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - HEATH et al. v. STINSON et al., 238 Ga. 364, 233 S.E.2.d 178 (1977)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - THORNTON et al. v. REB PROPERTIES, INC., 237 Ga. 59, 226 S.E.2.d 741 (1976)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - SMITH et al. v. OLIVER., 219 Ga. 720, 135 S.E.2.d 862 (1964)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - SHARPTON v. GIVENS et al., 209 Ga. 868, 76 S.E.2.d 806
See other documents that cite the same legislation
