Patrick v. Glass

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Patrick v. Glass

374 S.E.2d 229, 188 Ga. App. 737, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 1194

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided October 6, 1988·No. 77290·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Carley, Judge.

Pursuant to OCGA § 44-7-54 (b), the trial court granted appelleeplaintiff landlord a writ of possession, finding that appellant-defendant had failed to pay the requisite rental payments into the registry of court. Appellant brings this direct appeal from that order. While the grant of a writ of possession is usually a final order which may or may not be directly appealable (see OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (3)), the record in this case shows that there are other claims which remain pending in the trial court. “Where there is a case involving multiple . . . claims, a decision adjudicating fewer than all the claims ... is not a final judgment. [Cit.] In such circumstances, there must be an express determination under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) [(cit.)] or there must be compliance with the requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) [(cit.)]. Where neither of these code sections are followed . . ., the appeal is premature and must be dismissed. [Cits.]” Spivey v. Rogers, 167 Ga. App. 729 (307 SE2d 677) (1983). Because the appropriate appellate procedure was not followed in this multiple-claim case, the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Deen, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carley, Judge.

Pursuant to OCGA § 44-7-54 (b), the trial court granted appelleeplaintiff landlord a writ of possession, finding that appellant-defendant had failed to pay the requisite rental payments into the registry of court. Appellant brings this direct appeal from that order. While the grant of a writ of possession is usually a final order which may or may not be directly appealable (see OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (3)), the record in this case shows that there are other claims which remain pending in the trial court. “Where there is a case involving multiple . . . claims, a decision adjudicating fewer than all the claims ... is not a final judgment. [Cit.] In such circumstances, there must be an express determination under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) [(cit.)] or there must be compliance with the requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) [(cit.)]. Where neither of these code sections are followed . . ., the appeal is premature and must be dismissed. [Cits.]” Spivey v. Rogers, 167 Ga. App. 729 (307 SE2d 677) (1983). Because the appropriate appellate procedure was not followed in this multiple-claim case, the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Deen, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

Patrick v. Glass, 374 S.E.2d 229, 188 Ga. App. 737, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 1194 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

374 S.E.2d 229 (Patrick v. Glass) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related