Melanie Lawson v. Darin W. Mitchell, Jr.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Melanie Lawson v. Darin W. Mitchell, Jr.

DecidedOctober 19, 2022

DocketA23A0409

StatusPublished

This text of Melanie Lawson v. Darin W. Mitchell, Jr. (Melanie Lawson v. Darin W. Mitchell, Jr.) 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

Melanie Lawson v. Darin W. Mitchell, Jr., (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ October 19, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23A0409. MELANIE LAWSON v. DARIN W. MITCHELL, JR.

Plaintiff Melanie Lawson filed this direct appeal from the trial court’s order denying her motion to enforce a settlement agreement. According to Lawson, the order was the de facto grant of summary judgment, which may be appealed directly. We disagree. Lawson does not contend the case is final, which would entitle her to a direct appeal in accordance with OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1).1 Rather, she relies upon OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), which permits a direct appeal from the partial grant of summary judgment. Contrary to Lawson’s contention, however, a trial court’s order denying a motion to enforce a settlement agreement does not constitute the grant of partial summary judgment. “A motion for summary judgment is designed to test the merits of a claim.” Forest City Gun Club v. Chatham County, 280 Ga. App. 219, 221 (633 SE2d 623) (2006) (punctuation omitted). Where, as here, the motion at issue did not seek to dispose of any claim, the ruling on the motion does not constitute a viable grant of summary judgment. See Nugent v. Myles, 350 Ga. App. 442, 445-446 (1) (a) (829 SE2d 623) (2019). Because the case remains pending before the trial court – and because the order is not otherwise directly appealable – Lawson was required to comply with the

1 Lawson filed a prior appeal from an order granting in part and denying in part motions for summary judgment. In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instruction. See Case No. A20A1515 (Nov. 2, 2020). That opinion left claims pending below, and it appears those claims have not been resolved. interlocutory appeal procedures in order to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Forest City Gun Club, 280 Ga. App. at 221 . Her failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 10/19/2022 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

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ October 19, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23A0409. MELANIE LAWSON v. DARIN W. MITCHELL, JR.

Plaintiff Melanie Lawson filed this direct appeal from the trial court’s order denying her motion to enforce a settlement agreement. According to Lawson, the order was the de facto grant of summary judgment, which may be appealed directly. We disagree. Lawson does not contend the case is final, which would entitle her to a direct appeal in accordance with OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1).1 Rather, she relies upon OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), which permits a direct appeal from the partial grant of summary judgment. Contrary to Lawson’s contention, however, a trial court’s order denying a motion to enforce a settlement agreement does not constitute the grant of partial summary judgment. “A motion for summary judgment is designed to test the merits of a claim.” Forest City Gun Club v. Chatham County, 280 Ga. App. 219, 221 (633 SE2d 623) (2006) (punctuation omitted). Where, as here, the motion at issue did not seek to dispose of any claim, the ruling on the motion does not constitute a viable grant of summary judgment. See Nugent v. Myles, 350 Ga. App. 442, 445-446 (1) (a) (829 SE2d 623) (2019). Because the case remains pending before the trial court – and because the order is not otherwise directly appealable – Lawson was required to comply with the

1 Lawson filed a prior appeal from an order granting in part and denying in part motions for summary judgment. In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instruction. See Case No. A20A1515 (Nov. 2, 2020). That opinion left claims pending below, and it appears those claims have not been resolved. interlocutory appeal procedures in order to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Forest City Gun Club, 280 Ga. App. at 221 . Her failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 10/19/2022 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Melanie Lawson v. Darin W. Mitchell, Jr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melanie-lawson-v-darin-w-mitchell-jr-gactapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack