Tony L. Ware v. Pine State Mortgage Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tony L. Ware v. Pine State Mortgage Corp.

DecidedApril 5, 2018

DocketA18D0343

StatusPublished

This text of Tony L. Ware v. Pine State Mortgage Corp. (Tony L. Ware v. Pine State Mortgage Corp.) 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

Tony L. Ware v. Pine State Mortgage Corp., (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ March 21, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0343. TONY L. WARE v. PINE STATE MORTGAGE CORP. et al.

Tony L. Ware filed a dispossessory action in magistrate court against defendants Pine State Mortgage Corp., MidFirst Bank, and Mortgage Electronics Registration System, Inc. The magistrate court dismissed the action, and Ware filed a de novo appeal in the superior court. In superior court, Ware filed a motion for default judgment, which was denied. Ware thereafter filed this application for discretionary review. We, however, lack jurisdiction. The denial of a motion for default judgment is an interlocutory ruling. Rolleston v. Estate of Sims, 280 Ga. 32, 32 (1) (622 SE2d 849) (2005); Ware v. Handy Storage, 222 Ga. App. 339, 339 (474 SE2d 240) (1996). And the superior court’s order denying Ware’s motion for default judgment was not otherwise designated as a final order under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b). Accordingly, the case is still pending below, and Ware was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991). Although Ware filed a discretionary application, “[t]he discretionary appeal statute does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from complying with the additional requirements of OCGA § 5- 6- 34 (b).” Bailey, 266 Ga. at 833. Ware’s failure to follow the proper appellate procedures deprives us of jurisdiction over this premature application, which is hereby DISMISSED. See id.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 03/21/2018 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,____________________ March 21, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0343. TONY L. WARE v. PINE STATE MORTGAGE CORP. et al.

Tony L. Ware filed a dispossessory action in magistrate court against defendants Pine State Mortgage Corp., MidFirst Bank, and Mortgage Electronics Registration System, Inc. The magistrate court dismissed the action, and Ware filed a de novo appeal in the superior court. In superior court, Ware filed a motion for default judgment, which was denied. Ware thereafter filed this application for discretionary review. We, however, lack jurisdiction. The denial of a motion for default judgment is an interlocutory ruling. Rolleston v. Estate of Sims, 280 Ga. 32, 32 (1) (622 SE2d 849) (2005); Ware v. Handy Storage, 222 Ga. App. 339, 339 (474 SE2d 240) (1996). And the superior court’s order denying Ware’s motion for default judgment was not otherwise designated as a final order under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b). Accordingly, the case is still pending below, and Ware was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991). Although Ware filed a discretionary application, “[t]he discretionary appeal statute does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from complying with the additional requirements of OCGA § 5- 6- 34 (b).” Bailey, 266 Ga. at 833. Ware’s failure to follow the proper appellate procedures deprives us of jurisdiction over this premature application, which is hereby DISMISSED. See id.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 03/21/2018 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)

Tony L. Ware v. Pine State Mortgage Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tony-l-ware-v-pine-state-mortgage-corp-gactapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack