Benjamin Sinclair Hollberg,sr. v. Talbot State Bank

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 13, 2023
DocketA23A1599
StatusPublished

This text of Benjamin Sinclair Hollberg,sr. v. Talbot State Bank (Benjamin Sinclair Hollberg,sr. v. Talbot State Bank) 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
Benjamin Sinclair Hollberg,sr. v. Talbot State Bank, (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ June 13, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23A1599. BENJAMIN SINCLAIR HOLLBERG, SR. v. TALBOT STATE BANK.

Benjamin Sinclair Hollberg, Sr. filed a complaint for breach of contract, conversion, and fraud and deceit against Talbot State Bank. On November 1, 2021, the trial court granted the Bank’s motion for summary judgment. Hollberg filed a timely notice of appeal. However, on September 19, 2022, the trial court dismissed Hollberg’s appeal for failing to request and file the transcript. Hollberg then filed a motion for reconsideration followed by an “Amended Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Set Aside Dismissal” pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60 (d). On March 13, 2023, the trial court denied Hollberg’s motion. Hollberg filed a notice of appeal from that order. We, however, lack jurisdiction. First, the denial of a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment is not an appealable ruling. See Cornelius v. Morris Brown College, 299 Ga. App. 83, 85 (1) n.1 (681 SE2d 730) (2009). Consequently, to the extent that the order is denying the motion for reconsideration, an appeal is not available. Second, to the extent that the trial court’s order is denying the motion to set aside, the order is not directly appealable. An appeal from an order denying relief under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) must be initiated by filing a timely application for discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8); Jim Ellis Atlanta, Inc. v. Adamson, 283 Ga. App. 116, 116 (640 SE2d 688) (2006). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). Hollberg’s failure to follow the proper procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal. For these reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 06/13/2023 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

Jim Ellis Atlanta, Inc. v. Adamson
640 S.E.2d 688 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2006)
Cornelius v. Morris Brown College
681 S.E.2d 730 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Smoak v. Department of Human Resources
471 S.E.2d 60 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Benjamin Sinclair Hollberg,sr. v. Talbot State Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benjamin-sinclair-hollbergsr-v-talbot-state-bank-gactapp-2023.