MELODA SNEED v. PLACE AT MIDWAY, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 24, 2023
DocketA23A0991
StatusPublished

This text of MELODA SNEED v. PLACE AT MIDWAY, LLC (MELODA SNEED v. PLACE AT MIDWAY, LLC) 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
MELODA SNEED v. PLACE AT MIDWAY, LLC, (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ February 24, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23A0991. MELODA SNEED v. PLACE AT MIDWAY, LLC et al.

Meloda Sneed filed suit against Place at Midway, LLC (“Midway”), Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC (“Pinnacle”), and others. The trial court issued an order dismissing the claims against Midway and Pinnacle, and Sneed filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction. “In a case involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a decision adjudicating fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of less than all the parties is not a final judgment.” Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App. 628, 629 (385 SE2d 731) (1989) (citation and punctuation omitted). “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. (citation and punctuation omitted). Here, the record does not indicate that the trial court directed the entry of judgment under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) or that Sneed’s claims against the remaining defendants have been resolved. Thus, the order dismissing the complaint as to Midland and Pinnacle is a non-final order that did not resolve all issues in the case. See Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. v. Hill, 252 Ga. App. 774, 775 (1) (556 SE2d 468) (2001); Johnson, 192 Ga. App. at 629. Therefore, Sneed was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991). Sneed’s failure to follow the proper appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 02/24/2023 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

Johnson v. Hospital Corporation of America
385 S.E.2d 731 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Bailey v. Bailey
471 S.E.2d 213 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996)
Scruggs v. Georgia Department of Human Resources
408 S.E.2d 103 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1991)
Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. v. Hill
556 S.E.2d 468 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
MELODA SNEED v. PLACE AT MIDWAY, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meloda-sneed-v-place-at-midway-llc-gactapp-2023.