Publication in Georgia Tax Sale Redemptions: How Outside Investors Can Steal Your Deal

When a tax sale purchaser in Georgia wants to foreclose on the right of redemption, state law requires them to give notice to the tax debtor and any interested parties. That process includes publication in the county’s legal organ.

This publication requirement is critical for due process — it’s the mechanism that is part of clearing the title after the redemption period expires. But it also creates a business opportunity for others.

Many investors track these legal notices closely. Once a foreclosure-on-redemption publication runs, savvy investors will get notice and often go to great efforts to contact the tax debtor directly. Their pitch is simple: “Sell us your redemption rights.” If the debtor agrees, the investor can step in, redeem the property, and potentially negotiate a profit.

For the original tax sale purchaser, this means publication can invite competition. Instead of moving smoothly toward a quieted title, you may face a last-minute redemption financed by another investor.

 

Practical Takeaways

  • Make a deal - if you can make a deal with the tax debtor, do it before someone else does

  • Publication is mandatory — you can’t skip it.

  • Expect outside interest — assume other investors will notice the publication and may contact your debtor.

  • Timing matters — the sooner you move after the one-year redemption period ends, the less time there is for competing investors to interfere.

  • Clear communication with your counsel about deadlines and strategy can help protect your investment.

What Happens to a Georgia Security Deed with a Transfer on Death Deed?

A Transfer on Death Deed (TODD) lets you name a beneficiary to inherit real estate without going through probate. But if there’s a loan on the property (or security deed), it does not disappear when the owner dies. Here’s what you need to know:

1. The Mortgage Survives Death

The lender still has an interest the property and a right to be paid. The beneficiary takes ownership subject to that security deed.

2. The Beneficiary Must Pay to Keep the Property

The beneficiary is not personally liable for the loan unless they also signed the note. However, they must continue making payments, refinance, or pay it off if they want to keep the property. If payments stop, the lender may foreclose.

3. Due-on-Sale Clause

Normally, a transfer could trigger the 'due-on-sale' clause. But under federal law (the Garn–St. Germain Act), a transfer on death to a family member or joint tenant often does not trigger acceleration. You should confirm with the lender.

4. Effect on the Estate

The TODD avoids probate, but the security deed remains. The estate’s other creditors cannot eliminate the lender’s lien; the security deed has priority over other debts.

Is a property address good enough to describe property in Georgia?

In short, no.

It’s tempting to do your own deed and in templates, it would be easy just to put the address. After all, that is how we think of “describing” our property.

While street addresses may be included for convenience, they are not legally sufficient on their own. Addresses change and boundary lines are often imprecise.

In Georgia, a deed must contain a legal description of the property that is sufficient to identify it with reasonable certainty. (See Gould v. Gould) This description may be a metes-and-bounds (measurements and landmarks) survey, a lot and block reference from a recorded subdivision plat, or a reference to a prior recorded deed containing an adequate description.

Additionally, old deeds would sometimes identify all the surrounding properties as a way to describe the location. This may still pass muster, but you are at the whim of all the neighbors for where your property lines actually are. At best, you are likely just delaying obtaining a proper survey. At worst, you might have to fight out a quiet title action.

If you are trying to prepare your own deed, you need to understand how to insert a proper legal description, never just an address.

Can Two People Sign a Transfer-on-Death (TOD) Deed in Georgia?

Can Two People Sign a Transfer-on-Death (TOD) Deed in Georgia?

Yes. But the requirements may be different based on how you own the property - whether joint tenants with right of survivorship (JTROS) or tenants in common (TIC). (Learn more about JTROS AND TIC here)

In Georgia, if a property has two record owners, each must sign the same Transfer-on-Death (TOD) deed for it to be valid as to their respective ownership interests.

When Multiple Owners Are Involved:

  • Joint Owners as Grantors – All Must Sign

    • Georgia law allows a TOD deed to be recorded by a property’s record owner or owners.

    • If property is co-owned—especially as joint tenants with rights of survivorship—then all co-owners (grantors) must join in executing the TOD deed.

    • Only after the last surviving co-owner dies will the beneficiary acquire the property.

    • Without signatures from every co-owner, the deed cannot effectively transfer that individual’s share at death.

  • Tenants in Common – Separate Deeds Allowed

    • In a tenancy-in-common, each owner holds a distinct share of the property.

    • Each co-owner may independently execute their own TOD deed covering only their interest, without requiring the consent or signature of the other owners.

Do you really need to initial every page of your mortgage?

In real estate transactions, it is common practice for parties to initial each page of a mortgage or deed- but is this legally required? Here’s a look at how courts across jurisdictions have handled this question:

  1. Witness Signatures and Attestation – Not Initials- Often Determine Validity

    In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Gordon (In re Codrington), 691 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2012), the Court held that a mortgage’s validity hinged on proper attestation, not on where initials or signatures appeared. Ultimately, the deed in question was deemed unrecordable under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-33 due to the lack of proper attestation—not because it lacked initials on each page. The court states that, “we think that Wells Fargo appears to have a colorable argument that Georgia law does not require the attestations to be found in a particular place in every document (the signature page), as Gordon’s position seems to imply.” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 691 F.3d at 1354-55)

  2. Initials Not Generally Required for Enforceability

    In 21647 LLC v. Deutsche Nat’l Tr. Co., 632 F. Supp. 3d 270 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), the court confirmed that the absence of initials on each page of a mortgage did not affect the plaintiff’s status as a bona fide purchaser. The court made clear that unless a statute or contract explicitly requires initials, the failure to include them will not render a mortgage or deed invalid.

  3. When Initialing Matters: Implied Consent to Terms

    While not typically a legal requirement, courts have occasionally considered initials as supporting evidence of a party’s assent to particular provisions—especially those that may later be subject to dispute.

    • In Lacey v. EMC Mortg. Corp., U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41400 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 2011), the Court considered the presence of initials as indicative of the party’s consent to the contents of each page. This could be particularly relevant in an instance where, for instance, an arbitration clause is contested.

  4. Initials Are No Substitute for Signatures

In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hall, 95 Va. Cir. 377 (Cir. Ct. 2017), the Court emphasized that initialing every page does not compensate for a missing required signature. In other words, initials may demonstrate agreement, but they do not replace formal execution requirements under applicable state law.

Bottom Line:

While initialing each page of a deed/mortgage can serve as a helpful safeguard against disputes, case law suggests it is not typically required for the deed to be recordable- unless specified by state law or contract terms.

Courts place greater emphasis on whether the document is signed, properly attested, and whether its terms are clearly agreed upon. Still, initialing may serve as strong evidence of consent, especially in cases where the enforceability of specific provisions- like arbitration clauses- is challenged.

What happens with a deed in lieu of foreclosure?

A deed in lieu of foreclosure is an agreement where a borrower voluntarily transfers ownership of their property to the lender to satisfy a defaulted mortgage or loan and avoid formal foreclosure proceedings.

It benefits the lender, if the borrower is cooperative, in that it does not have to advertise and conduct a foreclosure. It may benefit the borrower by giving some room to make a dignified exit from her property. Sometimes, the lender will even offer money for moving.

It will still be a hit to a borrower’s credit and will likely prevent her from getting certain loan types, like a FHA loan, for several years.

If you are able to sell the house, you will almost certainly do better. A good realtor will be adept at this, knowing who will buy a house in this situation, and realizing that speed is essential.

In my experience, a candidate for a deed in lieu has a relationship with the lender, often a smaller lender, and doesn’t have the wherewithal to get the house ready for a proper listing and sale.

How it works:

  • The borrower is in default (or about to be).

  • Instead of going through foreclosure, the borrower (the homeowner) signs a deed transferring the property to the lender.

  • In return, the lender cancels the debt (in whole or sometimes in part). Beware, often the lender does not cancel the debt when the deed in lieu is transferred. The deed in lieu will have a provision about this, that the lien is not cancelled. Instead, the lender waits until it transfers the property again, to a third party, before it cancels the lien of the borrower. The lender does want to give up any of its rights to the debt in case something unexpected happens to the borrower.

Key Features:

  • Avoids foreclosure: Less damaging to the borrower’s credit than a formal foreclosure.

  • Saves time and costs: Lenders can regain title without going through court or auction.

  • Typically requires lender approval: The lender won’t accept a deed in lieu unless they’re confident there are no junior liens or title defects.

  • No deficiency judgment: Many agreements specify that the lender won’t pursue the borrower for any unpaid loan balance.

Risks:

  • If there are other liens, the lender will prefer foreclosure to wipe subordinate liens. Plus, the “seller” is still on the hook for those liens.

  • It’s generally considered loss mitigation—not debt forgiveness for tax purposes, so the borrower will likely get a 1099 and might have to pay substantial taxes.

  • The borrower will still likely take a big credit hit, but sometimes not as big as a foreclosure.

  • A bankruptcy court could strike the deed in lieu, if it appears the lender is trying to get around priority rules. 

Can a clause from an 1820’s document shut down a current real estate development?

Construction of Memphis Brooks Museum of Art Halted Amid Legal Dispute

Construction of the $180 million Memphis Brooks Museum of Art (MAM) has been at a

standstill for nearly four years due to a legal dispute over land use. The core issue revolves

around whether the project violates an 1820 riverfront easement, which mandates that the land

be preserved as a "promenade" for public use.

The controversy began when Friends for Our Riverfront, a local advocacy group, filed a 284-

page lawsuit against both the Brooks Foundation and the City of Memphis. The group claims

that the museum’s construction infringes upon the 1820 easement. Since the lawsuit was filed,

the project, which broke ground in 2021, has been delayed as the court determines whether

construction can continue.

Ownership and Control of the Land: The Heart of the Dispute

At the center of this legal battle is a question of ownership and control over the land in question.

In their petition, Friends for Our Riverfront—along with descendants of historical figures like

Virginia O. McLean (a descendant of Judge John Overton) and Elizabeth O. Snowden (a

descendant of Judge Overton)—argue that the heirs of the original landowners—President

Andrew Jackson, Judge John Overton, General James Winchester, and their associates—retain

ownership of the riverfront property.

The petitioners contend that the original 1819 Plan of Memphis dedicated the land for public

use, including the “Public Promenade,” which was to be the “crown jewel of the riverfront”.

According to their claims, the heirs maintain fee title to the land, while the public holds an

easement to use it as a promenade. They argue that the City of Memphis has no ownership

interest in the land but merely serves as a trustee, responsible for maintaining the public’s

easement. See Memphis v. Overton, 216 Tenn. 293, 392 S.W.2d 98, (Tenn., 1965).

Bruce McMullen, who represents the city and the Brooks Foundation, argues that the museum

aligns with the city’s commitment to public use, and that “the use is for the current-day

administration to decide.” Historically, the site housed a fire station and a city-owned parking

garage uses that Friends for Our Riverfront never contested.

The Broader Impact on Memphis Riverfront Development

Ultimately, the court will make the decision with the scales tilted toward approving construction

the MAM. Even if a reverter clause, or use easement, doesn’t prohibit a particular use, the MAM

episode shows that it can certainly stall the process and increase the costs. It shows the

importance of knowing your title documents.

Sources:

Friends for Our Riverfront Page

2023 Petition

Article from the Daily Memphian (March 4, 2025)

Homeowners at risk of Foreclosure due to Decade-old "Zombie Second Mortgages"

In recent years, a troubling trend has emerged in the real estate world: the revival of “zombie” second mortgages. These are dormant loans, often forgotten or deemed forgiven, that have come back to haunt homeowners in the form of massive debt and even foreclosure.

The history of second mortgages in the United States is closely tied to the housing boom of the early 2000s. At this time, homeowners were encouraged to take out multiple loans to finance their homes—typically a first and second mortgage. These second mortgages were viewed as a positive alternative for individuals who could not afford to make a down payment in cash.

 In 2008, as home prices plummeted, and millions of homeowners were left underwater—owing more than their homes were worth—many found themselves struggling to keep up with mortgage payments. In response, the federal government introduced various relief programs, including loan modifications under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which aimed to make mortgages more affordable and prevent foreclosures. Individuals facing financial hardship received assurances from lenders that their second mortgages would either be modified or, in some cases, outright forgiven. Many stopped receiving statements or updates from their second mortgage lenders and thus assumed the second mortgage had been taken care of.  

 Almost two decades later, as the housing market has recovered and home prices have risen, these “forgiven” second mortgages are returning to suffocate over ten thousand homeowners in the United States today. Economists from Planet Money and NPR explain that the “zombie” second mortgage is the recent activity of investors and debt collectors who are aggressively going after the second mortgages that many homeowners believed were forgiven. Collectors are buying these second mortgages from investors for a fraction of their original value, raising interest rates and then forcing individuals to foreclose on their homes because of their outstanding debt. In most cases, monthly statements were never prepared or distributed to borrowers, leaving them unaware of their rising debt. Kristi Kelly is a consumer protection attorney in Fairfax, VA who has worked with several homeowners to fight against these collection agencies and prevent foreclosure. Kelly views the situation as a huge injustice, noting that even “very sophisticated people” are unaware that a second mortgage company could foreclose on their homes if they do not take action to stop it.

One key element in these cases is the issue of missing monthly statements. Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z), mortgage companies are required to send monthly statements to homeowners if there is interest accruing on a loan. However, many homeowners with zombie second mortgages have not received such statements for years. According to Kelly, this oversight can provide homeowners with an opportunity to fight back: “In some ways, the greed of these second mortgage holders has given people leverage in their cases, because it’s just not good enough to collect the value of the note, and they want to get every last dollar and take every dime of equity. They then open themselves up to serious legal consequences and provide consumers the leverage they need to stay in their homes.”

The rise of zombie second mortgages underscores ongoing risks for homeowners, even as the housing market has rebounded. It’s a reminder of the long-lasting impact of the housing crisis and the importance of staying vigilant about financial obligations. Homeowners facing such situations should seek legal advice to protect their interests.

More from Planet Money

The CrossMod Conundrum: Defining ‘Mobile Home’ in the Age of Innovation

According to Jonathan Douglas v. Five Star Properties, Inc. the CrossMod home is not a mobile home because it is designed to be a permanent structure once placed. It is affixed to a permanent, load-bearing foundation, and experts testify that it is not easily movable once constructed. These factors distinguish the CrossVue home from traditional mobile homes, which are intentionally designed to be transportable.

In Jonathan Douglas v. Five Star Properties, Inc. the Tennessee Court of Appeals at Knoxville discussed the enforcement of restrictive covenants, specifically regarding the development of mobile homes.

The central issue in this case was the ambiguity of the term "mobile home," as neither the plat nor deed restrictions defined it. The key question upon appeal was whether the initial trial court erred in its interpretation of the restrictive covenant.

Originally, the trial court ruled that Five Star Properties’ development of the CrossMod home violated the covenant, mainly focusing on the home’s construction process and its off-site manufacturing (over 70% of the CrossMod is built off-site). The court was initially concerned with the appearance of the CrossMod and its close resemblance to a mobile home.

However, the appellate court took a different approach, focusing on the permanence of the structure. Five Star Properties argued that the trial court had wrongly applied previous cases, (particularly Neas and Napier), and instead should have followed the precedent set in McKeehan v. Price (2022) and Williams v. Williams (Tennessee Supreme Court). These cases reject the idea that homes built off-site should automatically be classified as mobile homes. In McKeehan, the court explained that a "mobile home" refers to a structure designed for transient occupancy or ready transportability, not one intended to be permanent.

They determined that, although the CrossMod home is mainly manufactured off-site, it is designed to be a permanent structure once placed on a foundation. It is affixed to a permanent, load-bearing foundation, and experts testified that it is not easily movable once constructed, distinguishing it from a traditional mobile home, which is typically designed to be easily transportable.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that the CrossMod home should not be considered a "mobile home" as defined by the restrictive covenant.