Ayasha S. Hanif v. usaa/garrison Property and Casualty Company

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 20, 2025
DocketA25D0365
StatusPublished

This text of Ayasha S. Hanif v. usaa/garrison Property and Casualty Company (Ayasha S. Hanif v. usaa/garrison Property and Casualty Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ayasha S. Hanif v. usaa/garrison Property and Casualty Company, (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ May 20, 2025

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25D0365. AYASHA S. HANIF v. USAA/GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY.

Ayasha S. Hanif brought a personal injury action against USAA/Garrison Property and Casualty Company (“Garrison”), as her uninsured motorist carrier. When Garrison failed to file an answer or responsive pleading, the trial court entered a default judgment. Garrison filed a motion to set aside the default judgment , which the trial court granted on March 28, 2025. Here, Hanif seeks to appeal the trial court’s order granting Garrison’s motion to set aside. We, however, lack jurisdiction. “The grant of a motion to set aside a default judgment . . . leaves the case pending in the trial court below and is not a final judgment.” Laff Lines, Ltd. v. Dimauro, 186 Ga. App. 24, 25 (366 SE2d 375) (1988) (emphasis in original); see also Guy v. Roberson, 214 Ga. App. 391, 392 (1) (448 SE2d 60) (1994). Thus, Hanif was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedure outlined in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), which includes obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court and applying to this Court for permission to appeal. See Guy, 214 Ga. App. at 392 (1). And Hanif’s filing of an application for a discretionary appeal does not excuse her from complying with the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Eidson v. Croutch, 337 Ga. App. 542, 543 (788 SE2d 129) (2016). Accordingly, Hanif’s failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedure deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider this application, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 05/20/2025 I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Laff Lines, Ltd. v. DiMauro
366 S.E.2d 375 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1988)
Guy v. Roberson
448 S.E.2d 60 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1994)
Eidson v. Croutch
788 S.E.2d 129 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ayasha S. Hanif v. usaa/garrison Property and Casualty Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ayasha-s-hanif-v-usaagarrison-property-and-casualty-company-gactapp-2025.