Steve Ramsland v. W. Keith Ramsey

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 22, 2013
DocketA14A0386
StatusPublished

This text of Steve Ramsland v. W. Keith Ramsey (Steve Ramsland v. W. Keith Ramsey) 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
Steve Ramsland v. W. Keith Ramsey, (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,__________________ November 22, 2013

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A0386. STEVE RAMSLAND, et al. v. W. KEITH RAMSEY.

In their pending divorce case, Gloria Ramsey filed a counterclaim alleging that her husband, W. Keith Ramsey, had fraudulently conveyed his majority ownership in Horizon Satellites, Inc., to another shareholder. As counterclaim defendants, she named the company and two individual shareholders. The trial court entered an order which (1) set aside the conveyance and (2) dismissed two of the three counterclaim defendants from the case. All three counterclaim defendants then filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction. “In a case involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a decision adjudicating fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of less than all the parties is not a final judgment.” (Punctuation and citation omitted.) Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App. 628, 629 (385 SE2d 731) (1989); see also Cohran v. Jones, 160 Ga. App. 761 (2) (288 SE2d 80) (1981) (order dismissing “third party defendants” from case was not subject to direct appeal because the main case was still pending in the trial court); Von Waldner v. Baldwin/Cheshire, Inc., 133 Ga. App. 23 (1) (209 SE2d 715) (1974) (order dismissing third-party complaint and denying motion to add third party defendant was not subject to direct appeal). Here, although the trial court resolved the counterclaim, the parties’ divorce proceeding remains pending. Accordingly, the challenged order is not a final order, and it is appealable only through the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Johnson, supra. Because the appellants have failed to comply with those procedures, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 11/22/2013 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

Related

Von Waldner v. Baldwin/Cheshire, Inc.
209 S.E.2d 715 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Johnson v. Hospital Corporation of America
385 S.E.2d 731 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Cohran v. Jones
288 S.E.2d 80 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Steve Ramsland v. W. Keith Ramsey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steve-ramsland-v-w-keith-ramsey-gactapp-2013.