Gary Erwin v. Conyers Housing Authority

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedAugust 4, 2022
DocketA22A1715
StatusPublished

This text of Gary Erwin v. Conyers Housing Authority (Gary Erwin v. Conyers Housing Authority) 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
Gary Erwin v. Conyers Housing Authority, (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ August 04, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1715. GARY ERWIN v. CONYERS HOUSING AUTHORITY.

In this civil action, the trial court issued an order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the defendant, Conyers Housing Authority, and ruling that the defendant was entitled to attorney fees under the parties’ contract. The plaintiff, Gary Erwin, then filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction because the trial court’s order reserved ruling on the issue of the amount of attorney fees to be awarded to the defendant. Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), appeals may generally be taken from “[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below[.]” When the case remains pending, the losing party is required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), including obtaining a certificate of immediate review. Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551 (2) (787 SE2d 731) (2016). “[A] case remains pending in the trial court where that court has explicitly reserved issues related to costs and attorney fees for future judgment.” Edokpolor v. Grady Memorial Hosp. Corp., 302 Ga. 733, 734-735 (808 SE2d 653) (2017). Thus, because the trial court’s order here reserved the issue of the amount of attorney fees, the order was not a final judgment and required compliance with the interlocutory appeal procedures. See id.; Islamkhan, 299 Ga. at 550 (1); Stump v. Young, 307 Ga. App. 583, 584 (705 SE2d 684) (2011). The plaintiff’s failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 08/04/2022 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

Stump v. Young
705 S.E.2d 684 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011)
Islamkhan v. Khan
787 S.E.2d 731 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2016)
Edokpolor v. Grady Memorial Hospital Corp.
808 S.E.2d 653 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gary Erwin v. Conyers Housing Authority, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-erwin-v-conyers-housing-authority-gactapp-2022.