Thomas A. Oldroyd v. Edward C. Williams

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 1, 2023
DocketA23I0195
StatusPublished

This text of Thomas A. Oldroyd v. Edward C. Williams (Thomas A. Oldroyd v. Edward C. Williams) 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
Thomas A. Oldroyd v. Edward C. Williams, (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ May 01, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23I0195. THOMAS A. OLDROYD et al. v. EDWARD C. WILLIAMS.

In this property dispute involving access to and use of a lake, Edward C. Williams filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, trespass, and injunctive relief against Thomas A. and Brenda K. Oldroyd. Williams filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and the Oldroyds also filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court ultimately granted Williams’s partial motion for summary judgment on the issues of declaratory judgment and trespass, and did not consider the Oldroyds’ motion. The Oldroyds then filed this timely application for interlocutory appeal, seeking to appeal the trial court’s ruling.1 Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), the grant of summary judgment on any issue or as to any party is reviewable by direct appeal. Olympic Dev. Group v. American Druggists’ Ins. Co., 175 Ga. App. 425, 425 (1) (333 SE2d 622) (1985). Moreover, all rulings within that order and any other non-final rulings entered in the case may also be raised as part of such a direct appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (d); Southeast Ceramics v. Klem, 246 Ga. 294, 295 (1) (271 SE2d 199) (1980). Thus, the order granting Williams’s motion for partial summary judgment is directly appealable, and the Oldroyds need not file a separate application for interlocutory appeal. “This Court will grant a timely application for interlocutory review if the order complained of is

1 The Oldroyds state in their application that they have also filed a notice of appeal and filed this application out of an abundance of caution citing OCGA § 9-11- 56 (h), which provides that an order denying summary judgment is subject to review by the interlocutory appeals procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34. subject to direct appeal and the applicants have not otherwise filed a notice of appeal.” Spivey v. Hembree, 268 Ga. App. 485, 486 n. 1 (602 SE2d 246) (2004). Accordingly, this application for interlocutory appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Oldroyds shall have ten days from the date of this order to file a notice of appeal in the trial court if they have not already done so. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). The clerk of the trial court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 05/01/2023 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

Southeast Ceramics, Inc. v. Klem
271 S.E.2d 199 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1980)
Olympic Development Group, Inc. v. American Druggists' Insurance
333 S.E.2d 622 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Spivey v. Hembree
602 S.E.2d 246 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Thomas A. Oldroyd v. Edward C. Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-a-oldroyd-v-edward-c-williams-gactapp-2023.