Romero Pearson v. Sweetwater Pool Management-South, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Romero Pearson v. Sweetwater Pool Management-South, Inc.

DecidedNovember 19, 2014

DocketA14A1292

StatusPublished

This text of Romero Pearson v. Sweetwater Pool Management-South, Inc. (Romero Pearson v. Sweetwater Pool Management-South, Inc.) 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

Romero Pearson v. Sweetwater Pool Management-South, Inc., (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ November 14, 2014

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A1292. PEARSON v. SWEETWATER POOL MANAGEMENT-SOUTH, INC. et al.

Romero Pearson, who represented an interested non-party in litigation against the Appellees, filed this appeal from the trial court’s order denying his motion to set aside an order enforcing the settlement agreement1 between the Plaintiff and Appellees after proceeds of the settlement were disbursed to the Plaintiff’s attorney and from there, to his client,2 without the gross proceeds first being split and paid to the Plaintiff via the Plaintiff’s attorney and to his client via Pearson. Pearson did not appeal from the order enforcing the settlement, and instead filed a motion to set aside under OCGA § 9-11-60 (f). The correct code section for a motion to set aside is OCGA § 9-11-60 (d), and construed as either a motion to set aside or as a motion for reconsideration, an order denying either type of motion is not directly appealable.3 Moreover, because the issues raised by Pearson regarding the distribution of the settlement were not mere clerical errors obvious on the face of the record under OCGA § 9-11-60 (g), the order denying his motion was not directly appealable pursuant to that code section.

1 The order also denied Pearson’s motion to intervene as untimely. 2 Pearson’s client is a non-married parent of the decedent in the underlying action and was entitled to half of the proceeds of the settlement under Georgia law. See OCGA §§ 19-7-1 (c) (2) (C) & 51-4-4. 3 See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8); Mayor & Aldermen of the City of Savannah v. Norman J. Bass Constr. Co., 264 Ga. 16, 17 (1) (441 SE2d 63) (1994). Accordingly, the Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss the appeal is GRANTED and Pearson’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 11/14/2014 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 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

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ November 14, 2014

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A1292. PEARSON v. SWEETWATER POOL MANAGEMENT-SOUTH, INC. et al.

Romero Pearson, who represented an interested non-party in litigation against the Appellees, filed this appeal from the trial court’s order denying his motion to set aside an order enforcing the settlement agreement1 between the Plaintiff and Appellees after proceeds of the settlement were disbursed to the Plaintiff’s attorney and from there, to his client,2 without the gross proceeds first being split and paid to the Plaintiff via the Plaintiff’s attorney and to his client via Pearson. Pearson did not appeal from the order enforcing the settlement, and instead filed a motion to set aside under OCGA § 9-11-60 (f). The correct code section for a motion to set aside is OCGA § 9-11-60 (d), and construed as either a motion to set aside or as a motion for reconsideration, an order denying either type of motion is not directly appealable.3 Moreover, because the issues raised by Pearson regarding the distribution of the settlement were not mere clerical errors obvious on the face of the record under OCGA § 9-11-60 (g), the order denying his motion was not directly appealable pursuant to that code section.

1 The order also denied Pearson’s motion to intervene as untimely. 2 Pearson’s client is a non-married parent of the decedent in the underlying action and was entitled to half of the proceeds of the settlement under Georgia law. See OCGA §§ 19-7-1 (c) (2) (C) & 51-4-4. 3 See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8); Mayor & Aldermen of the City of Savannah v. Norman J. Bass Constr. Co., 264 Ga. 16, 17 (1) (441 SE2d 63) (1994). Accordingly, the Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss the appeal is GRANTED and Pearson’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 11/14/2014 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Romero Pearson v. Sweetwater Pool Management-South, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romero-pearson-v-sweetwater-pool-management-south--gactapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack