Dan Woodley Communities Inc. v. SunTrust Bank

Dan Woodley and Dan Woodley Communities, Inc. “Woodley” appeal from the superior court’s confirmation of a foreclosure sale of a condominium development, contending an error in the advertisement of the sale requires reversal. This case is directly controlled by our earlier decision in Southeast Timberlands v. Security Nat. Bank , 220 Ga. App. 359 469 SE2d 454 1996, in which the debtor similarly sought to invalidate a confirmation due to an error in the advertisement; we therefore find no error and affirm. In its sole enumeration of error, Woodley contends the foreclosure should not have been confirmed because, while the advertisement contained the correct legal description of the entire property foreclosed upon, it did not note that six or possibly seven condominium units were sold by Woodley before foreclosure. From this, Woodley contends that the legal description in the advertisement was legally deficient and the confirmation must therefore be invalidated. This is incorrect for two reasons.

OCGA § 44-14-162 a states that a foreclosure sale is not valid “unless the sale shall be advertised and conducted at the time and place and in the usual manner of the sheriff’s sales in the county in which such real estate or a part thereof is located.” OCGA § 9-13-140 a, governing judicial sales, requires that the advertisement include “a full and complete description of the property to be sold, making known the names of the plaintiff, the defendant, and any person who may be in the possession of the property. In the case of real property, such advertisement shall include the legal description of such real property. . . .” OCGA § 44-14-162 a additionally provides that, if any transfer or conveyance to a new owner and assumption by the new owner of the debt has occurred, the advertisement “should also include a recital of the fact,” but also provides: “Failure to include such a recital in the advertisement, however, shall not invalidate an otherwise valid foreclosure sale.” There is “no legal requirement” that other deeds affecting the property be included in the advertisement. Scroggins v. Harper , 138 Ga. App. 783, 785 2 227 SE2d 513 1976 first priority security deed not in advertisement but announced at sale.