Oconee Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Kenneth A. Brown ( 2019 )

FIRST DIVISION
MILLER, P. J.,
MCMILLIAN and REESE, JJ.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
http://www.gaappeals.us/rules
March 4, 2019
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A18A1963. OCONEE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN
ASSOCIATION v. BROWN et al.
MILLER, Presiding Judge.
Oconee Federal Savings and Loan Association (“Oconee Federal”) appeals
from the trial court’s order granting an injunction enjoining the scheduled foreclosure
sale of the house of Kenneth and April Brown. Because the Browns have not tendered
to Oconee Federal payment of their debt that has become due and is secured by their
house, we reverse.
Under OCGA § 9-5-8, “[t]he granting and continuing of injunctions shall
always rest in the sound discretion of the judge, according to the circumstances of
each case. This power shall be prudently and cautiously exercised and, except in clear
and urgent cases, should not be resorted to.” “[W]e will not reverse the decision to
grant an interlocutory injunction unless the trial court made an error of law that
contributed to the decision, there was no evidence on an element essential to relief,
or the court manifestly abused its discretion.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Nissan North America, Inc. v. Walker-Jones Nissan, LLC, 345 Ga. App. 447, 450
(812 SE2d 130) (2018). Further, “where there is no conflict in the evidence, the
judge’s discretion in granting or denying the interlocutory injunction becomes
circumscribed by the applicable rules of law.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Shiva Management, LLC v. Walker, 283 Ga. 338, 340 (658 SE2d 762) (2008).
The loan
On May 10, 2007, the Browns entered into a home equity agreement and
disclosure statement (also known as a home equity line of credit, or “HELOC”) with
Oconee Federal’s predecessor, Stephens Federal Bank.1 Under the HELOC
agreement, the Browns could obtain advances totaling $40,000 over the course of a
120-month draw period ending with a maturity date of May 15, 2017. During the
1
This HELOC agreement constituted a refinance of an earlier HELOC
agreement between the Browns and the bank. In addition to the HELOC agreement,
the Browns executed an April 16, 2003 promissory note in favor of Stephens Federal
Bank in the amount of $136,000. The note was secured by a security deed on the
Browns’ house, and its maturity date was May 1, 2018. While it appears that this
2003 loan is in default, the injunction and scheduled foreclosure relate to the 2007
HELOC agreement.
2
draw period, the Browns were required to make minimum monthly payments, which
consisted of the accrued interest as of the closing date of each billing statement, and
late fees would be assessed if they missed their minimum monthly payment. The
agreement provided that the minimum monthly payments would not reduce the
outstanding principal balance, and upon expiration of the draw period the Browns
were required to pay the entire unpaid balance in one balloon payment. The
agreement also provided that if the Browns defaulted by failing to make payments,
the bank could, “after any required notices and to the extent permitted by law,
terminate [the] Account and declare the entire balance of [the] Account immediately
due and payable.”
The Browns’ indebtedness under the HELOC agreement was secured by their
house pursuant to a security deed. The security deed provided that the Browns had
the right to reinstate and cure any default by paying all sums due. Regarding this right
to cure a default, the security deed provided that the Browns were entitled to the
following notice of their right to cure before the bank accelerated the entire debt:
Lender shall give notice to Borrower prior to acceleration following
Borrower’s breach of any covenant or agreement in this Security
Instrument or the Contract under which acceleration is permitted . . . .
The notice shall specify: (a) the default; (b) the action required to cure
3
the default; (c) a date, not less than the minimum number of days
established by Applicable Law from the date the notice is given to
Borrower, by which the default must be cured; and (d) that failure to
cure the default on or before the date specified in the notice may result
in acceleration of the sums secured by this Security Instrument and sale
of the Property. To the extent permitted by law, the notice shall further
inform Borrower of the right to reinstate after acceleration and the right
to bring a court action to assert the non-existence of a default or any
other defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale. The security deed
provided that if the default was not cured by the date specified in the
notice, the bank could “require immediate payment in full of all sums
secured by this Security Instrument without further demand and may
invoke the power of sale granted by Borrower and any other remedies
permitted by Applicable Law. Borrower appoints Lender the agent and
attorney-in-fact for Borrower to exercise the power of sale.”
Default
The Browns took $40,000 in advances under the HELOC agreement. The
Browns made several minimum monthly payments on the debt, generally paying only
the minimum payment to cover interest, and these monthly payments averaged
approximately $260 or $270. The Browns’ last monthly payment was in May 2015.
Around this time, the Browns submitted an application to modify their HELOC
agreement and/or consolidate the debt with their 2003 loan. On September 18, 2015,
4
Oconee Federal notified the Browns that their application to modify the HELOC
agreement and/or consolidate the debt with the 2003 loan had been denied, and
reminded them of the need to make payments and bring the HELOC debt current in
order to avoid foreclosure.
The Browns claim that: in phone conversations Oconee Federal employees told
them their application would be approved and instructed them not to make payments
while the application was pending; from approximately May 2015 to September 2015
Oconee Federal refused any payment whatsoever and returned several payment
checks; and subsequently Oconee Federal improperly refused payment unless it was
payment in full and included late fees and penalties. Oconee Federal employees deny
telling the Browns not to make payments, and the record shows that while the
Browns’ application was pending and thereafter, Oconee Federal sent the Browns
both monthly account statements detailing the payments due and late charges
assessed, as well as numerous emails urging the Browns to make their payments.
On October 2, 2015, Oconee Federal’s counsel notified the Browns that all
communications concerning the debt should be directed to counsel. On November 20,
2015, counsel sent the Browns a letter stating that “[p]ursuant to the terms of the
HELOC Oconee Federal is hereby exercising its right to accelerate the debt and
5
hereby demands payment in full” of $42,034.96. Counsel stated in the letter that
Oconee Federal would not accept any payment for less than the entire debt owed.
Apparently, this was the Browns’ first notice of acceleration on the HELOC, and at
the time Oconee Federal mistakenly believed that the HELOC agreement and security
deed did not require Oconee Federal to provide the Browns notice of a right to cure
their default before accelerating the entire debt. The Browns claim that around this
time Oconee Federal would not accept any payment without them signing a release
of liability, while Oconee Federal claims that it only insisted upon a release of
liability if the Browns wanted an alteration of the HELOC agreement before making
payments.
Although the Browns dispute the amount they owe Oconee Federal under the
HELOC agreement and whether the amount should include late fees, penalties, and
interest, they acknowledge that they owe some amount under the agreement and that
Oconee Federal could foreclose pursuant to the security deed if the debt was not
repaid. In the trial court, the Browns admitted that they have not tendered any
payments to Oconee Federal since at least October 2015.
Initial foreclosure proceedings and this lawsuit
6
On January 29, 2016, Oconee Federal initiated foreclosure proceedings under
the HELOC agreement and security deed, stating in a letter to the Browns that in the
absence of payment in full of the amount due under the agreement, which it asserted
was $42,683.11, it would foreclose on the Browns’ house on March 1, 2016. In
February 2016, the Browns filed this action against Oconee Federal and other
defendants, seeking injunctive relief to enjoin the foreclosure and raising claims of
wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, and fraud. Subsequently, Oconee Federal
cancelled the scheduled foreclosure, but reserved the right to reinitiate foreclosure
proceedings.
In June 2016, the Browns filed a motion for an order directing funds to be
deposited in the registry of the trial court. In the motion, the Browns alleged that they
had been unable to make their regular monthly payments to Oconee Federal since
May 2015 because Oconee Federal improperly refused to accept any tender of
payment that did not include the total amount due under the HELOC agreement or
late fees, penalties, and attorney fees. While the Browns disputed the exact amount
owed under the HELOC agreement, they acknowledged they had financial obligations
to Oconee Federal. The Browns requested that the trial court allow them to tender into
the trial court registry the total amount owed under the agreement from May 2015
7
until May 2016, which they asserted was approximately $2,970, and authorize them
to deposit all future monthly payments into the registry until final judgment was
entered.2
Oconee Federal opposed the motion, arguing that the Browns were required to
tender payment of the HELOC debt to it, not the trial court registry. Oconee Federal
requested that the Browns pay the amount owed under the HELOC agreement to
bring the debt current and then continue to make monthly payments until it was paid
off.
Following a hearing, the trial court granted the Browns’ motion in September
2016, directing the trial court clerk to deposit a tendered check for $2,970 on the
HELOC debt into the registry and to deposit future payments as they were made. The
trial court ruled that the funds deposited would be held in the registry until there was
an agreement among the parties or an order directing disbursement.3 The trial court
2
The Browns also requested that the trial court allow them to tender into the
registry the amount they owed under the 2003 loan.
3
The Browns tendered funds into the registry in September 2016 and April
2017. At the time of the March 2018 hearing on the Browns’ motion for an
interlocutory injunction, it appears the Browns had tendered $4,834.43 on the
HELOC debt and $25,848.69 on the 2003 loan.
8
did not instruct the Browns on whether they should deposit payments or how much
any payments should be.
In April 2017, the Browns filed a third amended complaint against Oconee
Federal and other defendants.4 In the complaint, the Browns sought injunctive relief
to enjoin any foreclosure and a declaratory judgment regarding the amount they owed
Oconee Federal and whether they were in default. The Browns also raised claims of
breach of contract, fraud, negligence, violations of the Georgia Fair Lending Act,
OCGA § 7-6A-1 et seq., and violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
12 U.S.C. § 2605, and they requested punitive damages and attorney fees. The crux
of the Browns’ complaint was that Oconee Federal had caused or encouraged any
default by telling them not to make payments, refusing payments unless they were full
payments that included late fees and penalties, improperly handling their application
to modify the HELOC agreement, and improperly accelerating the HELOC debt.
Resumption of foreclosure proceedings and the motion for an injunction
4
The Browns also named as defendants Oconee Federal Financial Corp.,
Stephens Federal Savings and Loan Association, Brian C. Ranck, and Sanders,
Ranck, & Skilling, P.C. Oconee Federal Financial Corp. is the holding company for
Oconee Federal. Brian C. Ranck previously represented Oconee Federal in this
dispute as an attorney with Sanders, Ranck, & Skilling, P. C. Ranck and the law firm
have been dismissed from the underlying case with prejudice.
9
After providing advance notice on February 16, 2018, Oconee Federal resumed
foreclosure proceedings on March 2, 2018, citing the Browns’ failure to repay their
debt under the HELOC agreement in full by the maturity date of May 15, 2017. The
Browns then filed a motion for an interlocutory injunction to enjoin the foreclosure,
arguing that the HELOC debt and security deed were not then due or enforceable and
that there were questions of fact regarding what amount would be owed when they
were due. The Browns asserted that because Oconee Federal had prevented them from
making payments and told them not to make payments, Oconee Federal had made it
impossible for them to perform under the HELOC agreement and security deed,
Oconee Federal was estopped from enforcing the agreement and deed, and the
Browns were entitled to an equitable extension of the due date. Oconee Federal
responded that the Browns were not entitled to an injunction unless they tendered to
it the amount due under the HELOC agreement. At a March 19, 2018 hearing on the
motion, Oconee Federal asserted that the Browns then owed $51,786.27 under the
agreement – $39,930.22 in principal, $9,409.08 in interest, and $2,446.97 in late fees
– and submitted documentation in support of this figure.
On April 2, 2018, the trial court issued an order enjoining the foreclosure,
conditioned upon the Browns’ immediate payment of $2,700 into the trial court
10
registry, and their subsequent payment of $1,613 into the registry on the 15th day of
every month until further order. According to the trial court, the $2,700 payment
represented the combined monthly payments due on the HELOC debt since the
Browns’ last deposit into the registry in April 2017; and the $1,613 monthly
payments represented the combined monthly payments due on the 2003 loan and the
HELOC debt. The trial court explained that the Browns should not continue to live
in their house without making some sort of payments, but that the case should
proceed without a foreclosure in the middle of it, which would complicate matters
and create damages against Oconee Federal if a jury found in favor of the Browns.5
The trial court ruled that the money would be held in the registry until further order.
The Browns made the payments as required by the trial court. Oconee Federal then
filed this appeal of the injunction.6
Oconee Federal’s Appeal
5
Subsequently, the trial court denied Oconee Federal’s motion for summary
judgment, and Oconee Federal’s appeal of that ruling is currently pending. See Case
No. A19A0040.
6
The grant or denial of injunctive relief is directly appealable. See OCGA § 5-
6-34 (a) (4); Jones v. Peach Trader, Inc., 302 Ga. 504, 511 (III) (807 SE2d 840)
(2017).
11
Oconee Federal argues that the trial court erred in issuing the injunction
because the Browns were required to tender the amount owed under the HELOC
agreement to Oconee Federal in order to avoid foreclosure. Oconee Federal asserts
that there is undisputed evidence that the HELOC loan has matured and the debt
remains unpaid. We agree and reverse the injunction.
As the Browns’ debt to Oconee Federal under the HELOC agreement has
matured, the Browns were required to tender payment of the amount due to Oconee
Federal in order to obtain an injunction enjoining foreclosure, but they have not done
so. “[I]n a typical wrongful foreclosure action, the plaintiff is required to tender the
amount due under the security deed and note in order to maintain an action in equity.”
Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless, Inc. v. Ichthus Community Trust, 298 Ga.
221, 236 (4) (a) (780 SE2d 311) (2015) (hereinafter “Metro Atlanta Task Force”). In
addition, tender, when required, must be made to the lender, not the trial court. See
P. B. R. Enterprises, Inc. v. Perren, 243 Ga. 280, 283 (5) (253 SE2d 765) (1979);
Harpe v. Stone, 212 Ga. 341 (1) (92 SE2d 522) (1956). Here, the trial court’s order
that payments be deposited into the registry until further order does not result in a
tender to Oconee Federal. See Perren, supra, 243 Ga. at 283 (5) (“The fact that the
trial judge, as a condition for the grant of the temporary injunction, required payment
12
into the registry of the court of the installments due under the defendants’ mortgage
and the monthly installments due thereon until further order of the court does not
constitute tender to the defendants.”).
This is a typical wrongful foreclosure action, and therefore the Browns were
required to tender to Oconee Federal the amount owed under the HELOC agreement
in order to obtain an injunction.
The evidence relevant to [Oconee Federal’s] right to exercise its power
of sale is established by the unambiguous terms of the [HELOC
agreement and] security deed, which plainly gives [Oconee Federal] the
right to foreclose on the [p]roperty in the event the loan was not satisfied
in full by the [May 15, 2017] maturity date. It is uncontroverted that the
loan was not and never has been satisfied. Thus, [Oconee Federal] is
merely exercising a right plainly given by the deed which the grantor
executed to it.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Walker, supra, 283 Ga. at 340; see also DuBarton
Enterprises, LLC v. Appalachian Community Bank, 304 Ga. App. 273, 273-274 (695
SE2d 748) (2010). In Walker, supra, 283 Ga. at 341, the Georgia Supreme Court held
that the trial court abused its discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction
enjoining a foreclosure sale because the lender had the legal right to foreclose under
the terms of the loan agreement and security deed. Similarly, here Oconee Federal had
13
the legal right to foreclose under the HELOC agreement and security deed, as the
HELOC debt has matured and remains unsatisfied, and the debt is secured by the
Browns’ house under the terms of the security deed. See Benton v. Patel, 257 Ga. 669(362 SE2d 217) (1987) (trial court abused its discretion in granting an interlocutory
injunction enjoining a foreclosure sale, where the borrower failed to maintain
insurance as required by the plain and unambiguous terms of the security deed).
Further, in light of Oconee Federal’s right to foreclose, the Browns were
required to tender to Oconee Federal the amount owed under the HELOC agreement
in order to enjoin the foreclosure. This Court and the Georgia Supreme Court have
held that, in general, where the debt is in default at the time of foreclosure and the
borrower has not tendered payment of the debt to the lender, the borrower is not
entitled to an injunction enjoining foreclosure. See Berry v. Government Natl. Mortg.
Assn., 231 Ga. 503 (202 SE2d 450) (1973); Stewart v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., 331 Ga.
App. 635, 640-641 (6) (770 SE2d 892) (2015). In Stewart, supra, 331 Ga. App. at 640
(6), this Court explained that “[h]e who would have equity must do equity, and give
effect to all equitable rights in the other party respecting the subject matter of the suit.
OCGA § 23-1-10. Under application of this maxim, before the complainant would be
14
entitled to equitable relief, she must do equity and tender the amount due under the
security deed and note.” (Punctuation omitted.)
While “tender is not an absolute rule,” Metro Atlanta Task Force, supra, 298
Ga. at 236 (4) (a), this case does not present circumstances compelling a departure
from this rule. Comparatively, for instance, in Metro Atlanta Task Force, supra, 298
Ga. at 236-237 (4) (a), the borrower alleged that the sale of promissory notes from the
original lender to other entities was procured via improper actions of the defendants
that constituted tortious interference with the borrower’s relationships with its lenders
and funding sources. The Georgia Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err
in allowing the borrower’s wrongful foreclosure claim to proceed in the absence of
payment of the amounts owed on the notes. Id. at 237 (4) (a). The Supreme Court
explained:
The alleged tortious conduct in this case may have prevented the
[borrower] from tendering its debt and is sufficient to create an
exception to the tender requirement . . . . This is not a case like many
others over the years, where a party sought to excuse its failure to tender
on grounds like poverty, non-compliance with foreclosure procedures,
or other acts not involving tortious interference with the funds that
would potentially comprise the tender itself.
Id. at 237 (4) (a).
15
Here, the Browns maintain that they have been capable of first making the
monthly payments and then paying the entire HELOC debt,7 but claim they should not
be required to pay the debt because Oconee Federal refused payments, failed to send
a right-to-cure letter, denied their application to modify the HELOC agreement, and
included late fees and penalties in the amount owed. Compare West v. Koufman, 259
Ga. 505 (384 SE2d 664) (1989) (trial court acted within its discretion in granting an
injunction enjoining foreclosure where borrower could be declared in default if a lien
was filed against the property and borrower alleged lender had actively solicited third
parties to file liens against the property; such conduct constituted a breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing implied in all contracts). These claims do not excuse the
Browns from the tender requirement, as Oconee Federal’s supposed conduct did not
constitute prevention of or a compromise of any proper tender by the Browns.
Regarding Oconee Federal’s purported prior refusal to accept payments in
2015, it is true that “[t]ender of an amount due is waived when the party entitled to
payment, by declaration or by conduct, proclaims that, if tender of the amount due is
made, an acceptance of it will be refused.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
7
Indeed, since this dispute began, the Browns sold a separate property and
received approximately $50,000, and they took out a loan to buy a new sports car
worth approximately $30,000.
16
Machen v. Wolande Management Group, Inc., 271 Ga. 163, 165 (1) (517 SE2d 58)
(1999). However, the HELOC debt matured and became due in full in May 2017, and
since that time Oconee Federal has clearly demanded payment, but the Browns have
made no payments to Oconee Federal. See Mitchell v. Interbay Funding, LLC, 279
Ga. App. 323, 325 (630 SE2d 909) (2006) (trial court properly granted lender
summary judgment on borrowers’ wrongful foreclosure claim, even though lender
returned one monthly payment, because there was no evidence the lender would have
rejected payments after the borrowers defaulted and because such payments were not
made); Hill v. Filsoof, 274 Ga. App. 474, 476 (1) (618 SE2d 12) (2005) (where
borrower made no proper tender and lender’s responses to borrower’s conditional
tender did not show a proper tender would have been a useless formality, trial court
properly granted lender’s motion to dismiss borrower’s claim to set aside the
foreclosure sale). “[A] tender must be continuous,” Machen, supra, 271 Ga. at 165(1), and the Browns have not shown that they have tendered any payment to Oconee
Federal after the HELOC debt matured or that Oconee Federal would have refused
any such tender. See id. at 165 (1) (“[I]n order for an actual tender to be waived by
[the creditor’s] statement or conduct, it would first be necessary for [the debtors] to
make an actual, present bona fide offer to pay that which is due.”).
17
The Browns’ claim that Oconee Federal did not provide proper notice of
acceleration in 2015 is unavailing, as they have not shown how any such failure
affected their ability to pay the HELOC debt upon maturity in 2017.8 See Calhoun
First Natl. Bank v. Dickens, 264 Ga. 285, 286 (2) (443 SE2d 837) (1994) (“The
bank’s failure to provide proper notice constituted a breach of the duty to fairly
exercise the power of sale created by [OCGA] § 23-2-114. Having established duty
and breach, however, [the borrower] still needed to show a causal connection between
the lack of notice and the alleged injury.”).
Furthermore, the Browns’ claim that the amount owed is in dispute does not
excuse them from the requirement that they tender payment to Oconee Federal. It is
undisputed that the Browns owe some amount to Oconee Federal, but they have not
tendered any payment to Oconee Federal since the debt matured. In Mitchell, supra,
279 Ga. App. at 325, this Court held that even if a bona fide controversy existed as
to the debtors’ liability for insurance charges under a promissory note and security
deed, the debtors “were obligated to pay the monthly sum they admittedly owed under
the promissory note,” and in light of their failure to pay this sum, the trial court
8
We note that on August 31, 2016, Oconee Federal’s counsel sent a letter to
the Browns stating that foreclosure could be avoided by curing the default on the
HELOC debt and that the amount necessary to cure the default was $4,237.93.
18
properly granted the lender a writ of possession and summary judgment on the
debtors’ claim for wrongful foreclosure. See also Hill, supra, 274 Ga. App. at 476 (1)
(“Given that [the borrower] admittedly owed the principal amount of the note but
conditioned his tender upon [the lender’s] prior surrender of the instruments securing
the note, [the borrower] did not make the payment or tender under the note required
for him to seek the equitable remedy of setting aside the foreclosure . . . .”). As the
Georgia Supreme Court has explained:
Under the long recognized and codified maxim that ‘[h]e who would
have equity must do equity,’ before a borrower who has executed to the
same grantee two deeds to secure debts can have affirmative equitable
relief to set aside a sale by the creditor under exercise of the power of
sale contained in the deeds, . . . and an injunction against the creditor
and the persons claiming under him to prevent interference with the
debtor’s possession of a portion of the property, such debtor must pay
or tender to the creditor the principal and interest which he admits to be
due, and would not be relieved of this duty by reason of the fact that the
creditor was demanding of him more than he owed.
(Citation omitted.) Harpe, supra, 212 Ga. at 341 (1).
Where there is a bona fide controversy over the amount required to satisfy the
debtor’s obligation, the debtor should still be required to tender such sums as are
admittedly due under the note. See Grebel v. Prince, 232 Ga. App. 361, 366 (2) (501
19
SE2d 538) (1998). Here, because the Browns have not tendered to Oconee Federal
the amount that is admittedly or undisputably due under the HELOC agreement –
which, at a minimum, would include the outstanding principal – they are not entitled
to an injunction enjoining foreclosure.
Nor are the Browns excused from the tender requirement based on their claims
that Oconee Federal prevented them from paying their debt by denying their
application to modify the HELOC agreement and in reporting them as delinquent to
credit agencies. First, as discussed above, the Browns indicated that they are capable
of paying the debt. Second, this Court has previously rejected similar claims:
[The borrower] further claims that the trial court should have enjoined
[the lender] from exercising its right to foreclose due to its allegedly
fraudulent failure to enter into another loan agreement with [the
borrower] so that it could satisfy the first loan. This claim is without
merit.
Any subsequent actions on the part of [the lender] that [the borrower]
claims have made it harder to repay the loan are immaterial, as [the
lender] had the right, under the plain terms of the deed, to exercise its
power of sale immediately upon the default. While [the borrower]
contends that it is now prevented from securing a loan that would enable
it to repay the loan from the bank, [the borrower’s] post hoc efforts to
20
satisfy the loan are irrelevant to [the borrower’s] right to exercise its
power of sale.
(Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) DuBarton Enterprises, LLC,
supra, 304 Ga. App. at 274; see also Ga. Investments Intl., Inc. v. Branch Banking and
Trust Co., 305 Ga. App. 673, 675 (1) (700 SE2d 662) (2010) (“A lender’s refusal to
make a second loan, or even misrepresentations that it would make a second loan,
does not bar the lender from recovery of the amount owed under the first loan.”)
(citation and punctuation omitted).
Similarly unavailing is the Browns’ related claim that Oconee Federal is
estopped from collecting on the HELOC debt due to its purported promises regarding
the application to modify the debt. “Promissory estoppel does not . . . apply to vague
or indefinite promises, or promises of uncertain duration,” Ga. Investments Intl., Inc.,
supra, 305 Ga. App. at 675 (1), and the Browns have been unable to point to any
specific terms of the proposed agreement or the purported approval of their
application to modify the debt.
In conclusion, the Browns are still living in their house, despite the fact that
they have defaulted under the HELOC agreement and security deed and have since
failed to tender payment of their debt to Oconee Federal. Furthermore, none of the
21
Browns’ claims excuse them from the requirement that they tender payment to
Oconee Federal. Accordingly, we must reverse the trial court’s grant of the
interlocutory injunction enjoining the foreclosure sale.
Judgment reversed. McMillian and Reese, JJ., concur.
22