Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Brown v. Citizens & Southern National Bank
Citations: 308 S.E.2d 850; 168 Ga. App. 385; 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2783Docket: 66130
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; September 28, 1983; Georgia; State Appellate Court
In Brown et al. v. Citizens Southern National Bank, the Court of Appeals of Georgia upheld a trial court's decision against appellants, who were accused of conspiracy to defraud the appellee, a judgment creditor of Mr. Brown. The appellee sought to place a lien on Mr. Brown's automobile but found he was transferring the title to Mrs. Brown. The trial court directed a verdict on liability and the jury awarded over $45,000 in damages. The appellants contested the trial court's denial of their motion for a directed verdict, arguing that the appellee did not demonstrate any damages from the alleged fraudulent transfer. The court disagreed, noting that the attempted transfer deprived the appellee of security equal to the vehicle's value. The trial court was also found justified in granting a directed verdict on liability, as the evidence showed Mr. Brown's indebtedness, insolvency (indicated by his bankruptcy proceedings), and the voluntary nature of the deed. The court cited relevant statutes and prior case law to support these findings. Appellants further argued that the jury should have been instructed on the correct measure of damages, claiming the measure should reflect the diminished security interest. However, the court clarified that the appellee had no security interest at the time of the attempted lien, as the vehicle was unencumbered. The judge's instruction to consider the vehicle's value in determining damages was deemed appropriate. Lastly, the appellants sought to disqualify a juror due to a banking relationship with the appellee but failed to demonstrate reversible error, as they did not prove they exhausted their peremptory strikes. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed.