Fortis Capital Partners, LLC v. Sean Hannity

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: October 10, 2013
• Docket: A14A0163
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 10, 2013

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A0162, A14A0163. FORTIS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC. et al v. SEAN HANNITY et al.

Sean Hannity, Accentex, Inc., and Donald Morrison (collectively “Hannity”) filed a suit on a note against Fortis Capital Partners, LLC., Corey Fuller, and Charles Johnson (collectively “Fortis Capital Partners”). On January 27, 2010, the trial court entered a final judgment and an order of contempt against Fortis Capital Partners. The trial court also granted Hannity’s motion for a supersedeas bond. Fortis Capital Partners appealed both orders. However, on June 2, 2010, the trial court granted Hannity’s motion to dismiss the appeal based on the failure to pay costs. The trial court deemed the appeal of the supersedeas bond moot since it was dismissing the main appeal. On December 6, 2011, Fortis Capital Partners filed a motion to set aside the judgment. The trial court denied this motion on February 24, 2012. Three months later, on May 29, 2012, Fortis Capital Partners filed an out-of-time motion for reconsideration of the denial of its motion to set aside, as well as another motion to set aside. The trial court denied both motions, and in Case Number A14A0162 Fortis Capital Partners filed a direct appeal from that order. Subsequently, the trial court granted Hannity’s motion for a supersedeas bond, and in Case Number A14A0163 Fortis Capital Partners filed a direct appeal from that order. We lack jurisdiction over both appeals. First of all, appeals from the denial of motions to set aside are subject to the discretionary application procedure. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8); Arrowhead Alternator v. CIT Communications Finance Corp., 268 Ga. App. 464, 466 (602 SE2d 231) (2004). In addition, motions for reconsideration do not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal, see Cheeley-Towns v. Rapid Group, Inc., 212 Ga. App. 183 (1) (441 SE2d 452) (1994), and an order denying a motion for reconsideration is not appealable in its own right. See Bell v. Cohran, 244 Ga. App. 510, 511 (536 SE2d 187) (2000). Here, Fortis Capital Partners may not directly appeal the trial court’s denial of its motion to set aside or its motion for reconsideration. Thus, we lack jurisdiction over Case Number A14A0162, and it is hereby DISMISSED. Because we have dismissed the underlying appeal, any issues pertaining to the supersedeas bond are moot. See, e.g., Muhammad v. Power Lending, LLC, 311 Ga. App. 347, 350 (5) (715 SE2d 734) (2011). And an appeal of an issue that has become moot is subject to dismissal. OCGA § 5-6-48 (b) (3). Accordingly, Case Number A14A0163 is likewise DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta, 10/10/2013 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.