C. J., MILLER, P. J., and REESE, J.
Miller, Presiding Judge.
Tisdale sued The Westmoore Group ("Westmoore") and
two individuals who assisted in obtaining a mortgage on her
home (collectively "Defendants"), alleging multiple
violations of federal statutes and the Georgia Fair Lending
("GFLA"), fraud in the inducement, and civil
conspiracy. Defendants filed a counterclaim for
attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11. The trial court
granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and awarded
them $61, 231.10 in attorney fees. Tisdale now appeals. After a
thorough review of the record, we affirm in part and reverse
appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we review the
evidence de novo to determine whether the trial court erred
in concluding that no genuine issue of fact remains and that
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law." (Citation omitted.) Chapman v. C. C. Dickson
Co., 273 Ga.App. 640, 641 (1) (616 S.E.2d 478) (2005).
viewed, the evidence shows that in 2011, Tisdale obtained a
high-interest mortgage loan ("the Loan") through
Westmoore in the amount of $49, 062 to purchase her home in
Covington. The Loan was secured by a security deed, which
contained an accelerated remedies clause providing for an
opportunity to cure any default prior to foreclosure.
after Tisdale closed on the home, she made late payments and
disputed the closing costs, mortgage terms, and loan
calculations. On August 28, 2012, Westmoore agreed to a loan
modification, in which it refunded certain fees to Tisdale,
and Tisdale signed a release (the "Release")
agreeing that "all aspects of the Loan [were] proper and
correct and in full compliance with all applicable state and
federal laws." The Release further provided that Tisdale
would release Westmoore and its agents and employees from any
claims she "ever had, now have, or which she hereafter
can, shall or may have" against them. Under the terms of
the Release, any violation would allow Westmoore to
"declare the Loan immediately due and payable."
signing the Release, Tisdale continued to dispute the terms
of her mortgage. She also fell further into arrears on her
payments. In July 2013, Westmoore notified Tisdale of her
default and the opportunity to cure so as to avoid the
acceleration of the Loan and the subsequent commencement of
Tisdale again disputed the amount due, Westmoore agreed to
postpone acceleration of the Loan. In a Postponement Letter
Tisdale signed and agreed to on August 15, 2013, Westmoore
advised Tisdale that the failure to comply with the terms of
the Postponement Letter could result in foreclosure
proceedings. Notably, in the Postponement Letter, Tisdale
admitted that she had no defenses against Westmoore in
connection with its security interest.
Tisdale failed to make the required payments, and Westmoore
began foreclosure proceedings. Tisdale continued to challenge
the underlying mortgage obligation by filing a complaint in
Newton County Superior Court. While that case was pending,
Tisdale also sought injunctive relief to stop the foreclosure
sale in federal court. Both of these cases were later
then filed the instant suit,  and Defendants filed a
counterclam for attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11.
Liberally construing Tisdale's state-law claims in her
complaint, she alleged that the Defendants committed fraud in
connection with the initiation and signing of her Loan,
conspired to commit fraud in connection with her Loan, and
violated the GFLA by demanding payments that exceed the
permissible amount. In February 2014, Tisdale filed a
bankruptcy petition, which stayed the foreclosure
removed this case to the federal district court, which
ultimately dismissed the federal claims and remanded
Tisdale's state-law fraud, conspiracy, and GFLA claims,
as well as Defendants' counterclaim, to the trial court.
On remand, the trial court granted Defendants' motion for
summary judgment, finding (1) the Release was a valid
agreement, and, therefore, any claims relating to the Loan
prior to the August 28, 2012 date of the Release were barred
by the terms of the Release; (2) claims relating to conduct
that occurred between the date of the Release and the August
15, 2013 Postponement Letter were barred by the terms of the
Postponement Letter; and (3) Defendants were entitled to OCGA
§ 13-6-11 attorney fees in the amount of $61, 231.10.
Before we reach the merits of the appeal, we note that
Tisdale's brief fails to comply with this Court's
rules because it does not contain numbered and distinct
enumerations of error with supporting arguments. See
Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (1). Tisdale's pro se status
does not relieve her of her obligation to comply with the
rules of this Court. See Floyd v. Brown, 338 Ga.App.
520, 521 (1) (790 S.E.2d 307) (2016). "Our requirements
as to the form of appellate briefs were created, not to
provide an obstacle, but to aid parties in presenting their
arguments in a manner most likely to be fully and efficiently
comprehended by this Court." (Citation and punctuation
rules are more than a mere formality. Barnett v.
Fullard, 306 Ga.App. 148, 149 (1) (701 S.E.2d 608)
(2010). Rather, they are designed to ensure that all
enumerations of error are addressed and to aid our review of
each enumeration. Id. By failing to comply with
Court of Appeals Rule 25, Tisdale has hindered our review of
her arguments and has risked the possibility that certain
enumerations will not be addressed. See id. at 149-150 (1).
Nevertheless, we will address claims of error to the extent
we are able to discern them, and we deny Defendants'
motion to dismiss the appeal on this basis. See id. at 150
Tisdale's brief, we interpret her claims to challenge the
grant of summary judgment to Defendants on the grounds that
(a) her claims arising prior to August 15, 2013 were not
barred; (b) Defendants were in breach by refusing to allow
her to cure the default; and (c) the Release and Postponement
Letter are void. Tisdale also ...