Mark G. Sayeg v. Tao Zha

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 11, 2017
DocketA18A0119
StatusPublished

This text of Mark G. Sayeg v. Tao Zha (Mark G. Sayeg v. Tao Zha) 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
Mark G. Sayeg v. Tao Zha, (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ October 05, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0119. MARK G. SAYEG et al. v. TAO ZHA et al.

Tao Zha and Suzanne Zha filed a quiet title action against Mark G. Sayeg and Edie G. Sayeg. Donna R. Whitener was subsequently added as a defendant. The Zhas requested that the quiet title dispute be submitted to a special master, which issued a report finding in favor of the Zhas. The report was adopted by the trial court as its final order, and the defendants seek to appeal this ruling. The Zhas have filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the case is not ripe for appellate review as claims remain pending below. As a general rule, a right of direct appeal lies from a final judgment; that is, where the case is no longer pending below. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). If a trial court’s order adjudicates fewer than all of the claims asserted, the order is non-final. See Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App. 628, 629 (385 SE2d 731) (1989). “In such circumstances, there must be an express determination under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) or there must be compliance with the interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Where neither of these code sections are followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed.” Id. (punctuation omitted). Here, the Zhas amended their complaint to include additional claims for trespass, injunctive relief and punitive damages. Because the trial court has not decided those claims – and because it does not appear that the Zhas have abandoned or waived those claims – the trial court’s order is non-final. See Rhymes v. East Atlanta Church of God, 284 Ga. 145, 147-148 (663 SE2d 670) (2008). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED as premature.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 10/05/2017 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

Rhymes v. East Atlanta Church of God, Inc.
663 S.E.2d 670 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008)
Johnson v. Hospital Corporation of America
385 S.E.2d 731 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mark G. Sayeg v. Tao Zha, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-g-sayeg-v-tao-zha-gactapp-2017.