Shane Wahner v. Franklin Gateway Opportunity Capital, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 15, 2025
DocketA26A0151
StatusPublished

This text of Shane Wahner v. Franklin Gateway Opportunity Capital, LLC (Shane Wahner v. Franklin Gateway Opportunity Capital, LLC) 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
Shane Wahner v. Franklin Gateway Opportunity Capital, LLC, (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ September 15, 2025

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26A0151. SHANE WAHNER v. FRANKLIN GATEWAY OPPORTUNITY CAPITAL, LLC.

In August 2024, the trial court directed the entry of final judgment in favor of plaintiff Franklin Gateway Opportunity Capital, LLC (“FGOC”) and against defendant Shane Wahner under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b). Thereafter, FCOG served Wahner with post-judgment discovery to which he apparently did not respond. In early 2025, FCOG filed a motion to compel and request for attorney fees, and Wahner filed multiple motions for a stay and a motion to reopen the appeal period. The trial court granted FGOC’s motion to compel and awarded it attorney fees under OCGA § 9-11-37. In the same order, the court denied Wahner’s motions. He appeals, but we lack jurisdiction. Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) (B), appeals generally may be taken from “[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below.” Where post-judgment discovery proceedings remain pending in the trial court, the case is not final. Cornelius v. Finley, 204 Ga. App. 299, 300-301 (418 SE2d 815) (1992) (an order compelling post-judgment discovery “is not final in the sense of being dispositive of the case, as contemplated by OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1),” where disputed discovery remains unanswered). Consequently, Wahner was required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures — including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court — to seek appellate review of the February 8 order. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Dial v. Bent Tree Nat. Bank, 215 Ga. App. 620, 621 (451 SE2d 533) (1994); Cornelius, 204 Ga. App. at 301. His failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996). For these reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 09/15/2025 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

Bailey v. Bailey
471 S.E.2d 213 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996)
Cornelius v. Finley
418 S.E.2d 815 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1992)
Dial v. Bent Tree National Bank
451 S.E.2d 533 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shane Wahner v. Franklin Gateway Opportunity Capital, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shane-wahner-v-franklin-gateway-opportunity-capital-llc-gactapp-2025.