TWIN PRIMES, LLC v. RANDALL DURDEN

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 11, 2024
DocketA24A1725
StatusPublished

This text of TWIN PRIMES, LLC v. RANDALL DURDEN (TWIN PRIMES, LLC v. RANDALL DURDEN) 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
TWIN PRIMES, LLC v. RANDALL DURDEN, (Ga. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ July 11, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A1724, A24A1725. RANDALL DURDEN et al. v. TWIN PRIMES, LLC; and vice versa.

In 2017, Twin Primes, LLC filed a complaint against Randall and Janice Durden and Florida-Blue Ridge Corporation, asserting claims for quiet title, a declaratory judgment, trespass, nuisance, ejectment, adverse possession of property south of a “1700 Foot Contour Line” as depicted on a certain survey, and attorney fees. In their answer, the Durdens asserted counterclaims for quiet title, a declaratory judgment, trespass, costs of litigation, punitive damages, and an interlocutory injunction. The Durdens also asserted cross-claims against Florida-Blue Ridge for quiet title, a declaratory judgment, and an interlocutory injunction. The Durdens thereafter filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to their counterclaims for quiet title and a declaratory judgment and for summary judgment on all of Twin Primes’ claims. In October 2020, a special master issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion be denied. In March 2021, the special master issued another R&R recommending: (i) “[t]hat fee simple title to the property above the 1700 Foot Contour Line Property belongs to the Durden Defendants and that all clouds upon the title of the Durden Defendants to the property above the 1700 Foot Contour Line Property be removed”; and (ii) “[t]hat fee simple title to the property below the 1700 Foot Contour Line Property belongs to Twin Primes, LLC and that all clouds upon the title of Twin Primes, LLC below the 1700 Foot Contour Line Property including the title of Defendant Florida-Blue Ridge Corporation be removed.” The special master expressly declined to address Twin Primes’ and the Durdens’ remaining claims for relief, including their claims for trespass, nuisance, ejectment, injunctive relief, and attorney fees and costs of litigation. In January 2024, the trial court issued an order: (i) affirming the denial of the Durdens’ motion for partial summary judgment; (ii) overruling Twin Primes’ and the Durdens’ objections to the March 2021 R&R; and (iii) adopting the March 2021 R&R as the order of the court. The Durdens thereafter filed a timely notice of appeal, which has been docketed in this Court as Case No. A24A1724, and Twin Primes filed a timely notice of cross-appeal, which has been docketed in this Court as Case No. A24A1725. We lack jurisdiction over both appeals. Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), 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.” Here, the trial court’s January 2024 order is a non-final order that did not resolve all issues in this case, as several of Twin Primes’ claims for relief and the Durdens’ counterclaims and cross-claims remain pending. See Rivera v. Housing Auth. of Fulton County, 163 Ga. App. 648, 648 (295 SE2d 336) (1982). Consequently, the parties were required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures — including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court — to appeal the January 2024 order. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); 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). Their failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over these appeals, which are hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey, 266 Ga. at 833; see also Patel v. Ga. Power Co., 234 Ga. App. 141, 142 (2) (505 SE2d 787) (1998) (“Although under OCGA § 5-6-48 (e), a cross-appeal may survive the dismissal of the main appeal, this is true only where the cross-appeal can stand on its own merit.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 07/11/2024 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)
Scruggs v. Georgia Department of Human Resources
408 S.E.2d 103 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1991)
Patel v. Georgia Power Co.
505 S.E.2d 787 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Rivera v. Housing Authority
295 S.E.2d 336 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
TWIN PRIMES, LLC v. RANDALL DURDEN, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twin-primes-llc-v-randall-durden-gactapp-2024.