Roberts v. WINDSOR CREDIT SERVICES

687 S.E.2d 647, 301 Ga. App. 393, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3942, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 1395
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 2, 2009
DocketA09A2031, A09A2032
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 687 S.E.2d 647 (Roberts v. WINDSOR CREDIT SERVICES) 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
Roberts v. WINDSOR CREDIT SERVICES, 687 S.E.2d 647, 301 Ga. App. 393, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3942, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 1395 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

BLACKBURN, Presiding Judge.

In this civil action, Windsor Credit Services filed a petition to foreclose on a motor vehicle purchased by Grady Roberts after Roberts failed to make payments that were due pursuant to a financing agreement. In Case No. A09A2031, Roberts appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss Windsor Credit’s petition and his motion to set aside the judgment, arguing that the motions should have been granted because Windsor Credit failed to effect proper service of process and because Windsor Credit was not in privity of contract with him and did not possess a security interest in the vehicle. In Case No. A09A2032, Roberts appeals the trial court’s order setting the amount for him to pay into the court’s registry pending his appeal in Case No. A09A2031, arguing that the trial court misinterpreted the statute regarding such payments. 1 Because these two appeals involve the same parties, set of facts, and principles of law, we consolidate them for review.

The record shows that Roberts purchased the subject motor vehicle on May 20, 2003, pursuant to a financing agreement with Mercedes Benz Credit Corporation. In April 2007, he began defaulting on the payments due under the agreement. Consequently, on September 24, 2008, Windsor Credit, acting on behalf of Mercedes Benz Credit Corporation, filed a petition for foreclosure on the *394 vehicle in the State Court of Fulton County. Roberts was served via tack and mail, pursuant to OCGA § 44-14-232 (a), and filed an answer on November 10, 2008. On December 9, 2008, the trial court held a hearing on the matter, during which Roberts moved for dismissal of the petition on the ground that Windsor Credit had failed to perfect service of process and thus the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over him. On that same day, the court denied Roberts’s motion and issued an order granting Windsor Credit’s foreclosure petition. In addition, the court also issued a writ of possession to Windsor Credit and a turnover order, directing Roberts to turn over the vehicle to the sheriff.

On December 15, 2008, Roberts filed a motion to set aside the judgment, arguing, again, that service of process was insufficient and that Windsor Credit had failed to prove that it was in privity of contract with him. That same day, Roberts filed a notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Fulton County, stating that he was appealing the trial court’s December 9, 2008 order. On January 20, 2009, after a hearing, the court denied Roberts’s motion to set aside the judgment. On February 24, 2009, the trial court dismissed his appeal to the Superior Court, and on that same day, Roberts filed a notice of appeal to this Court, stating that he was appealing the dismissal of his earlier notice of appeal and the denial of his motion to set aside the judgment.

In addition, on May 29, 2009, the trial court held a hearing, pursuant to OCGA § 44-14-234 (2), and determined that Roberts had to pay $29,000 into the court registry pending his appeal. Roberts filed a notice of appeal of this order to this Court on June 8, 2009.

Case No. A09A2031

1. In Case No. A09A2031, Windsor Credit filed a motion to dismiss Roberts’s appeal with this Court, and therefore we must first address whether we have jurisdiction in this matter. Specifically, Windsor Credit argues that Roberts’s appeal should be dismissed as untimely because he filed his notice of appeal more than 30 days after the trial court’s January 20, 2009 denial of his motion to set aside the judgment. We disagree.

Roberts’s February 24, 2009 notice of appeal to this Court states that he is appealing the trial court’s dismissal on that same day of his notice of appeal to the Superior Court. “[T]he dismissal of an appeal by the trial court is subject to direct appeal.” Rodriguez v. Nunez. 2 *395 We note that none of Roberts’s enumerations of error on appeal pertain to the dismissal of his notice of appeal to the Superior Court, but rather address other orders rendered in the case.

Notwithstanding that none of the errors enumerated pertain to the directly appealable [February 24 dismissal] from which the appeal in [Case No. A09A2031] was taken, we have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 (d) to review other orders rendered in the case which may affect the proceedings and which are raised in the appeal.

Threatt v. Rogers. 3 Indeed, that statute provides:

Where an appeal is taken under any provision of (a), (b), or (c) of this Code section, all judgments, rulings or orders rendered in the case which are raised on appeal and which may affect the proceedings below shall be reviewed and determined by the appellate court, without regard to the appealability of the judgment, ruling, or order standing alone and without regard to whether the judgment, ruling, or order appealed from was final. . . .

Thus, having filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of his notice of appeal to the Superior Court, Roberts can also appeal other rulings, including the denial of his motion to set aside the judgment. See White v. SunTrust Bank; 4 Pierce v. Wendy’s Intl. 5 Accordingly, we deny Windsor Credit’s motion to dismiss this appeal.

2. Roberts contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss Windsor Credit’s petition, arguing that the motion should have been granted because Windsor Credit failed to effect proper service of process and because Windsor Credit was not in privity of contract with him and did not possess a security interest in the vehicle. To resolve each of these issues requires us to review the evidence and testimony submitted by the parties during the hearings on the foreclosure petition and Roberts’s motion to set aside the judgment; however Roberts did not include those transcripts in the appellate record.

In this matter, the trial court held a hearing on Windsor Credit’s foreclosure petition, during which Roberts moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that Windsor Credit had not perfected service of process and was not in privity of contract with him. After *396 granting Windsor Credit’s petition and denying Roberts’s motion to dismiss, the trial court held a hearing on Roberts’s motion to set aside the judgment, during which the service and privity issues were again allegedly argued. However, Roberts has failed to include a transcript of either hearing in the appellate record. In addition, the clerk of the State Court of Fulton County has confirmed that his records indicate that no hearing transcripts were filed.

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

Related

John Doe v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2021
Clemons v. Delta Airlines, Inc.
790 S.E.2d 814 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2016)
Trotter v. Ayres
726 S.E.2d 424 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012)
Johnson v. Ware
723 S.E.2d 18 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012)
Farmer v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
718 S.E.2d 867 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011)
Nelson v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
704 S.E.2d 868 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)
Trey Inman & Associates, P.C. v. Bank of America, N.A.
702 S.E.2d 711 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)
Murray v. DeKALB FARMERS MARKET, INC.
699 S.E.2d 842 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
687 S.E.2d 647, 301 Ga. App. 393, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3942, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 1395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-windsor-credit-services-gactapp-2009.