Johnny W Warren's Legal Cases (3)

Contracts and agreements

Parker vs. Cook No. A01A0511 (248 Ga. App. 621)

Mar 14, 2001

OUTCOME: Cook prevailed in Motion for Summary Judgment and in the appeal from the grant of the Motion for Summary Judgment.

E.E. Parker appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Ruby Cook on a promissory note, arguing that the underlying principal was a gift, not a loan. Because the trial court did not err in c ... oncluding that the note was unambiguous and not susceptible to interpretation through parol evidence, we affirm the grant of summary judgment. Cook gave Parker two checks, one for 35,000 on March 13, 1990, and another for 45,000 on April 4, 1990. On April 11, 1990, Parker signed a promissory note, agreeing to pay interest from March 16, 1990, at nine percent interest per year, with the sum of 86,000 principal and interest due January 16, 1991. On January 26, 1999, Cook's attorney made a demand to Parker for the principal and interest to [248 Ga. App. 622] date, noting that attorney fees would be due unless the total was paid within ten days. Parker did not pay, Cook filed suit and moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted judgment to Cook for 80,000 principal, 75,070.75 interest, 23,260.63 attorney fees, and post-judgment interest pursuant to OCGA Â§ 7-4-12.

Contracts and agreements

Ward vs. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company et. al. No. A91A1256 (201 Ga.App. 307)

Sep 10, 1991

OUTCOME: Ward prevailed, after appeal, in securing payment of life insurance proceeds from policy in which she was named beneficiary.

This is an interpleader action involving the proceeds of an insurance policy issued by the interpleader to its insured, William Payne. Defendant Della Eunice Ward, Payne's former wife, was designated a ... s the beneficiary of the policy by Payne. She was the original and only designated beneficiary. At the time of the original designation, Payne and Ward were husband and wife. Payne and Ward were divorced in 1987. They entered into a property settlement agreement in which they agreed that neither party would make any claim against the real or personal property of the other. Payne died on August 19, 1988. He never changed the designated beneficiary of the policy. Ward claimed the proceeds of the policy as the designated beneficiary. Defendant John Payne, son of the insured, claimed the proceeds too. He asserted that Payne intended to make him the beneficiary of the insurance policy and that, at any rate, Ward relinquished her claim to the proceeds when she executed the property settlement agreement. To resolve the conflicting claims, the insurance company interpleaded the insurance proceeds. Following discovery, Ward moved for summary judgment. The superior court denied the motion but certified its ruling for immediate review. This Court granted an interlocutory appeal.

Contracts and agreements

Shepherd et. al. vs. Henderson No. 67304 (169 Ga.App. 486)

Jan 09, 1984

OUTCOME: Builder, Henderson, prevailed in the defense of a lawsuit alleging breach of warranty of title to land.

On or about August 24, 1979, Randy O. Shepherd and Joy W. Shepherd purchased a residential lot and house located at 100 Helen Drive in the City of Dublin, Laurens County, Georgia, from James T. Henders ... on. On January 14, 1981, plaintiffs (the purchasers) filed a complaint for damages against the defendant, as seller, alleging basically that they did not receive free and clear the entire property as described in the warranty deed conveyed to them by the defendant. To show this, plaintiffs attached as exhibits to their complaint two different plats, one of which was referred to in the deed to secure debt (which plaintiffs took subject to at the time of the conveyance), depicting the subject property. The plat copy referred to in the deed to secure debt (Plat No. 1) shows the subject property consisting of certain dimensions noninclusive of a street referred to in the plat as Helen Circle. The other plat copy (Plat No. 2) which plaintiffs designated as Exhibit "D" and which plaintiffs claim to be the correct copy shows the subject property consisting of the same dimensions as Plat No. 1, but inclusive of a portion of a street referred to in the plat as Helen Circle. Plaintiffs contend that this portion of Helen Circle, purportedly conveyed to them by defendant, was not in fact the property of defendant because it had already been dedicated to the city as a public street. As such, plaintiffs contend that they actually received less land than was described in the warranty deed conveyed to them by the defendant. Due to this alleged deficiency, plaintiffs claim that they were damaged in the amount of $15,000. Defendant denied that plaintiffs were damaged in any amount and moved for a summary judgment. The trial court, after a hearing, granted summary judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiffs. From this order plaintiffs appeal.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained