Sammy Hallaq v. Greenwood Trust Company D/B/A Discover Card

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 12, 2014
DocketA15D0140
StatusPublished

This text of Sammy Hallaq v. Greenwood Trust Company D/B/A Discover Card (Sammy Hallaq v. Greenwood Trust Company D/B/A Discover Card) 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
Sammy Hallaq v. Greenwood Trust Company D/B/A Discover Card, (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ December 05, 2014

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0140. SAMMY HALLAQ v. GREENWOOD TRUST COMPANY.

In 1998, a default judgment was entered against Sammy Hallaq for over $10,000 in credit card debt and interest. Hallaq moved to set aside the default judgment in 2008, and the trial court entered an April 10, 2008 order denying his motion to vacate the default judgment. This is Hallaq’s fourth application for discretionary appeal. In all four applications, Hallaq has essentially challenged the trial court’s April 10, 2008 order denying his motion to vacate the 1998 default judgment. In A08D0454, Hallaq challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. We dismissed the untimely application. In A09D0017, Hallaq challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion to recuse the judge who denied his motions. We dismissed the application as moot. In A09D0200, Hallaq again attempted to challenge the trial court’s 2008 order denying his motion to vacate. We dismissed the application and cautioned Hallaq against filing future motions or pleadings in this Court that have no substantial basis in law. In this pro se application, Hallaq challenges the trial court’s order denying yet another motion to vacate the default judgment. For the reasons set forth in those prior orders, his application for discretionary appeal must be DISMISSED. “It is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum.”1 In attempting to litigate the same issue multiple times, Hallaq has filed yet another application that has no basis in law and is thus frivolous. We cautioned Hallaq in

1 (Punctuation omitted.) Nally v. Bartow County Grand Jurors, 280 Ga. 790, 791 (3) (633 SE2d 337) (2006). A09D0200 that this Court is empowered to impose sanctions upon a party who files a frivolous application for discretionary appeal,2 yet Hallaq has again filed an application in this Court that has no substantial basis in law. Accordingly, this Court hereby assesses a penalty of $500 against Sammy Hallaq based on his history of frivolous filings in this Court.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 12/05/2014 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.

2 See Court of Appeals Rule 15 (b).

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

Related

Nally v. Bartow County Grand Jurors
633 S.E.2d 337 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sammy Hallaq v. Greenwood Trust Company D/B/A Discover Card, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sammy-hallaq-v-greenwood-trust-company-dba-discover-card-gactapp-2014.