Legal Opinion
Parham v. Peterson, Goldman & Villani
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided March 10, 2009No. A08A1692PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Adams, Judge.
Carl S. Parham appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Peterson, Goldman & Villani (“PGV”) in their suit seeking recovery on a promissory note signed by Parham. We reverse.
Parham originally executed the note on or about August 16, 2002 in favor of The CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. (“CIT”) in connection with Parham’s purchase of equipment. By April 2003, Parham had become delinquent on the note, and CIT sent him a “Notice of Default — Demand for Payment and Intention to Accelerate.” When no payment was forthcoming, CIT sent Parham a letter on…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Wilner's, Inc. v. FineCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
- GEMC Federal Credit Union v. ShoemakeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
- Carolina Tobacco Co. v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2008
- First National Bank v. Rivercliff Hardware, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
- BRYANT INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CraneCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- John Deere Construction & Forestry Co. v. ParhamCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2014
- John Deere Construction & Forestry Company v. Carl S. ParhamCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2014
- McIntire v. PerkinsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2012
- Michelle McIntire v. Misty PerkinsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2012