Ravan Construction Co. v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ravan Construction Co. v. Smith

522 S.E.2d 293, 239 Ga. App. 885, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 3342, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 1180

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 9, 1999

DocketA99A1481

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 522 S.E.2d 293 (Ravan Construction Co. v. Smith) 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

Ravan Construction Co. v. Smith, 522 S.E.2d 293, 239 Ga. App. 885, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 3342, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 1180 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Johnson, Chief Judge.

Ravan Construction Company, Inc., Regina Ravan and Gary Ravan (collectively “Ravan Construction”) file this direct appeal from the trial court’s order striking their answer and counterclaim and declaring them in default. This court does not have jurisdiction to decide this case.

The order appealed from states that because Ravan Construction did not comply with discovery rules, “the answer and counterclaim of Defendants shall be and are hereby struck and that Defendants are in default.” No amount of judgment is included in the order. No default judgment has ever been entered.

“The law distinguishes between a default, which involves an interlocutory matter, and a default judgment, which represents final judicial action and the vesting of rights.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Simons v. Equitec Properties Co., 190 Ga. App. 804 (380 SE2d 90) (1989). Because no final judgment has been entered in this case, the interlocutory appeal procedure was mandated. Id.; OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Inasmuch as Ravan Construction did not follow that procedure, the appeal must be dismissed. See Ware v. Handy Storage, 222 Ga. App. 339 (474 SE2d 240) (1996); Neal v. State of Ga., 182. Ga. App. 37 (354 SE2d 664) (1987).

Appeal dismissed.

Pope, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

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

Johnson, Chief Judge.

Ravan Construction Company, Inc., Regina Ravan and Gary Ravan (collectively “Ravan Construction”) file this direct appeal from the trial court’s order striking their answer and counterclaim and declaring them in default. This court does not have jurisdiction to decide this case.

The order appealed from states that because Ravan Construction did not comply with discovery rules, “the answer and counterclaim of Defendants shall be and are hereby struck and that Defendants are in default.” No amount of judgment is included in the order. No default judgment has ever been entered.

“The law distinguishes between a default, which involves an interlocutory matter, and a default judgment, which represents final judicial action and the vesting of rights.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Simons v. Equitec Properties Co., 190 Ga. App. 804 (380 SE2d 90) (1989). Because no final judgment has been entered in this case, the interlocutory appeal procedure was mandated. Id.; OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Inasmuch as Ravan Construction did not follow that procedure, the appeal must be dismissed. See Ware v. Handy Storage, 222 Ga. App. 339 (474 SE2d 240) (1996); Neal v. State of Ga., 182. Ga. App. 37 (354 SE2d 664) (1987).

Appeal dismissed.

Pope, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 S.E.2d 293, 239 Ga. App. 885, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 3342, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 1180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ravan-construction-co-v-smith-gactapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack