Legal Opinion

Mateen v. Dicus

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 8, 2005No. A05A1372PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MlKELL, Judge.

Pro se appellants Suraiya A. Mateen, Roohi Fatima Faiyaz, and Reema Mohammedi appeal the $689,690 judgment entered against them in this fraudulent conveyance action. We affirm. The relevant facts follow.

Appellants are the wife and daughters of Mohammad Faiyaz, who agreed to purchase a dry cleaning business from appellee Frank Dicus in 1996 for $380,000. Faiyaz made a $100,000 down payment and signed promissory notes for the remainder. After he defaulted on the notes, Dicus accelerated the balance and invoked the contract’s arbitration clause. The matter proceeded to binding…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Southeast Ceramics, Inc. v. KlemSupreme Court of Georgia · 1980
  2. Adams v. HazelwoodSupreme Court of Georgia · 1999
  3. Blackwell v. CantrellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
  4. Amaechi v. SomsinoCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2003
  5. Butler v. BIVEN SOFTWARE, INC.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1999

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Patterson v. LopezCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2006
  2. Mateen v. DicusSupreme Court of Georgia · 2006
  3. Bayless v. BaylessSupreme Court of Georgia · 2006
  4. Mateen v. DicusCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API