Deposition Day

It comes soon for Tom Graves.

Newly elected congressman Tom Graves is scheduled to give his side of the story in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed against him by Bartow County Bank.

Graves, a Republican from Ranger, is scheduled to give a deposition in Atlanta on Tuesday as part of the lawsuit, which also names state Sen. Chip Rogers, R-Woodstock.

The suit, filed in January, alleges that a business run by Graves and Rogers defaulted on a loan for $2.25 million and that Graves moved some of his property to his wife’s name to make it more difficult for the bank to collect.

Edward Hines, attorney for the bank, declined to comment on the case, saying he did not want the case to be tried in the media.


  1. Jawgadude says:

    This is not the first time Bartow County Bank has made a loan to a politician and then later used the leverage to try and force said politician into a bad deal.

  2. saltycracker says:

    Thought it came down to when you sign a personal guarantee for a note and then assign the note to someone else, are you still on the hook until the hooker sets you free.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      Hookers don’t set you free. Sometimes they negotiate price or payment, but it’s never free.

    • BoogDoc7 says:

      Typically PG terms cover everything that you’ve incurred. You can denounce a PG or transfer it, but you’re still responsible for everything in the past.

      Here, it’s going to be WHEN he transferred title of his property to his wife to protect it from seizure. If he did it at the right time in the past before the action was brought against him, then he’s off the hook.

      However, if he blatantly did it to try and claim that he doesn’t own anything, then there are issues with a fraudulent transfer.

  3. Atticus Grinch says:

    The hubris and arrogance in this comment is staggering:

    Rogers was traveling, but he sent a brief written statement through staffers.

    “The deposition involves a business in which I have no ownership interest,” he said, adding that he had no additional comment on the case.

    Rogers has said that he relinquished his stake in the property before the suit.


    He signed the Guaranty. He is a sophisticated businessman. He is represented by one of the best lawyers in the state in this area of the law. Even if the sale of the business were legitimate, he KNOWS that the guaranty is still binding. He knows what he is saying is not true. He is deliberately telling a lie, in my opinion, in the hopes that the “man on the street” will accept this ridiculous explanation and then put it out of his mind. When his lawyer adds this defense (Sen. Rogers sold his part of the business so the obligation under Guaranty vanishes) to his Answer, then I will believe that he is spewing this hogwash in good faith. Why can’t he “man up” and take responsibility for this (“I made a bad deal, the economy went bad, I am doing the best I can to honor my debts”)? And to think, he will probably be Governor or US Senator one day….

Comments are closed.