Chan Hunt v. Dorothy Hunt Callahan

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Chan Hunt v. Dorothy Hunt Callahan

DecidedMarch 21, 2019

DocketA19A1465

StatusPublished

This text of Chan Hunt v. Dorothy Hunt Callahan (Chan Hunt v. Dorothy Hunt Callahan) 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

Chan Hunt v. Dorothy Hunt Callahan, (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ March 06, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1465. CHAN HUNT et al. v. DOROTHY HUNT CALLAHAN.

Chan Hunt, Kim Hale, and Amie Heisick Burrill, as assignees of claim from the Estate of Carolyn H. Clements, deceased (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), filed this direct appeal from the superior court’s order granting a motion filed by Dorothy Hunt Callahan for discovery sanctions, including attorney fees, pursuant to OCGA § 9-11- 37, and dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint. The superior court’s order reserved the issue of attorney fees. We lack jurisdiction. “Generally, an order is final and appealable when it leaves no issues remaining to be resolved, constitutes the court’s final ruling on the merits of the action, and leaves the parties with no further recourse in the trial court.” Thomas v. Douglas County, 217 Ga. App. 520, 522 (1) (457 SE2d 835) (1995); see also OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). Here, in the order granting Callahan’s motion for discovery sanctions, the superior court specifically reserved ruling on the request for attorney fees, which leaves the case pending below. See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 (713 SE2d 678) (2011). The Plaintiffs therefore was required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court – to appeal the superior court’s order. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164, 164-165 (646 SE2d 469) (2007); CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc., 310 Ga. App. at 481. The Plaintiffs’ failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 03/06/2019 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

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ March 06, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1465. CHAN HUNT et al. v. DOROTHY HUNT CALLAHAN.

Chan Hunt, Kim Hale, and Amie Heisick Burrill, as assignees of claim from the Estate of Carolyn H. Clements, deceased (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), filed this direct appeal from the superior court’s order granting a motion filed by Dorothy Hunt Callahan for discovery sanctions, including attorney fees, pursuant to OCGA § 9-11- 37, and dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint. The superior court’s order reserved the issue of attorney fees. We lack jurisdiction. “Generally, an order is final and appealable when it leaves no issues remaining to be resolved, constitutes the court’s final ruling on the merits of the action, and leaves the parties with no further recourse in the trial court.” Thomas v. Douglas County, 217 Ga. App. 520, 522 (1) (457 SE2d 835) (1995); see also OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). Here, in the order granting Callahan’s motion for discovery sanctions, the superior court specifically reserved ruling on the request for attorney fees, which leaves the case pending below. See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 (713 SE2d 678) (2011). The Plaintiffs therefore was required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court – to appeal the superior court’s order. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164, 164-165 (646 SE2d 469) (2007); CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc., 310 Ga. App. at 481. The Plaintiffs’ failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 03/06/2019 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chan Hunt v. Dorothy Hunt Callahan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chan-hunt-v-dorothy-hunt-callahan-gactapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack