PEACHTREE INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC v. THOMAS TEAGUE HUNTER

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 3, 2024
DocketA24A1220
StatusPublished

This text of PEACHTREE INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC v. THOMAS TEAGUE HUNTER (PEACHTREE INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC v. THOMAS TEAGUE HUNTER) 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
PEACHTREE INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC v. THOMAS TEAGUE HUNTER, (Ga. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ May 03, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A1220. PEACHTREE INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC et al v. THOMAS TEAGUE HUNTER.

Thomas Teague Hunter sued several defendants, including Peachtree Investment Solutions, LLC. On November 15, 2023, the trial court granted Hunter’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding Peachtree Investment liable as a matter of law for breach of contract for failure to repay a promissory note. Peachtree Investment filed a notice of appeal from this ruling, and the appeal has been docketed as Case Number A24A1221. Peachtree Investment also filed a “Motion for Re-Hearing” from the summary judgment ruling, arguing that the trial court improperly conducted oral argument and failed to fully consider Peachtree Investment’s response to the motion for summary judgment. On November 23, 2023, the trial court denied the motion for rehearing, finding that its prior summary judgment ruling “is correct and remains the order of this Court.” Peachtree Investment filed a notice of appeal from this order, which has been docketed as the instant appeal. In substance, Peachtree Investment’s motion for rehearing was a motion for reconsideration. See Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk, 286 Ga. 589, 590 (690 SE2d 397) (2010) (in pleadings, substance controls over nomenclature). And the denial of a motion for reconsideration may not be appealed directly. See Ferguson v. Freeman, 282 Ga. 180, 181 (1) (646 SE2d 65) (2007). Furthermore, the appeal in the instant matter, A24A1220, is entirely duplicative of the appeal in A24A1221. For these reasons, we hereby DISMISS this appeal. Peachtree Investment has filed additional motions in this appeal, including a motion to consolidate this appeal with A24A1221 and a motion to supplement the record. Those motions are DISMISSED as MOOT.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 05/03/2024 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

Ferguson v. Freeman
646 S.E.2d 65 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2007)
Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk
690 S.E.2d 397 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
PEACHTREE INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC v. THOMAS TEAGUE HUNTER, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peachtree-investment-solutions-llc-v-thomas-teague-hunter-gactapp-2024.