Boyd v. Johngalt Holdings, LLC
Annotate this Case
Nathaniel and Lucy Boyd once owned a small parcel of commercial property in Fulton County, but according to the tax commissioner, they failed to pay their taxes, and as a result, the property was sold at a tax sale. The buyer, National Tax, gave its deed to Southeast Diversified Development, Inc., and Southeast Diversified gave a promissory note and deed to secure debt back to National Tax. That security deed later was assigned to JohnGalt Holdings, LLC. Southeast Diversified eventually defaulted on the promissory note, and JohnGalt foreclosed on its deed. In the meantime, the Boyds had made efforts to redeem the property with Southeast Diversified, by which the Boyds were to make
periodic payments. The Boyds failed to make all of the payments required under this agreement. JohnGalt gave notice to the Boyds of its intent to foreclose their right of redemption, and the Boyds entered into a new agreement with JohnGalt, by which the Boyds were to make periodic payments to JohnGalt to redeem the property. Again, the Boyds failed to make all of the required payments. The Boyds then attempted to rescind their agreement with JohnGalt, and eventually sued JohnGalt for trespass and ejectment, contending that they had redeemed the property. JohnGalt promptly answered the suit, but it did not then assert a counterclaim to quiet title. About three years later, JohnGalt sought leave to amend its pleadings and assert such a counterclaim, and the trial court granted its request. The Boyds filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim, and JohnGalt filed a motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim. A special master concluded that JohnGalt had good title to the property by virtue of its foreclosure of the right of redemption. The trial court adopted the report of the special master and quieted title in favor of JohnGalt. The Boyds appealed, asserting several claims of error. Finding no reversible error, however, the Supreme Court affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.