Ware v. Handy Storage

474 S.E.2d 240, 222 Ga. App. 339, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 2852, 1996 WL 397284, 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 817
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 17, 1996
DocketA96A1967
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 474 S.E.2d 240 (Ware v. Handy Storage) 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
Ware v. Handy Storage, 474 S.E.2d 240, 222 Ga. App. 339, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 2852, 1996 WL 397284, 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 817 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff Tony L. Ware, proceeding pro se, brought this action for damages against defendant Handy Storage, alleging that he had contracted to lease a portion of defendant’s warehouse for storage but that defendant “willfully converted plaintiffl’s] personal property,” allegedly worth $14,000,000, by deliberately removing the contents of plaintiff’s leased space. Service of process was made upon the Georgia Secretary of State and, after defendant failed to answer, plaintiff moved for a default judgment. The trial court determined that the damages sought by plaintiff were unliquidated damages and denied plaintiff’s motion for judgment by default. This direct appeal followed. Held:

Plaintiff’s notice of appeal recites that it is an appeal “from a Default Judgment entered and filed. . . This is incorrect, since plaintiff’s motion was expressly denied by the trial court. The Georgia Civil Practice Act, at OCGA § 9-11-55, distinguishes between a default, which involves an interlocutory matter, and a default judgment, which represents final judicial action and the vesting of rights. Lanier v. Foster, 133 Ga. App. 149, 153 (3) (210 SE2d 326). In the case sub judice, the denial of plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is not a final adjudication but is an interlocutory ruling which is not directly appealable. OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). Since plaintiff has failed to comply with the mandatory procedures for seeking permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal, the unauthorized direct appeal in the case sub judice must be dismissed. Havischak v. Neal, 176 Ga. App. 203 (335 SE2d 469).

Appeal dismissed.

Johnson and Ruffin, JJ, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Estate of Pauline Martin
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2022
Michael Lydon Strong v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2022
Patrick Koroma v. Katti Lanham
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2020
Tony L. Ware v. Pine State Mortgage Corp.
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2018
TAMARA P. BONNEY v. BANK OF AMERICA
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2016
Jerry Larry Collier v. Economy Auto Sales, Inc
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012
Waye v. Continental Special Risks, Inc.
656 S.E.2d 150 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2007)
Rolleston v. Estate of Sims
622 S.E.2d 849 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2005)
Standridge v. Spillers
587 S.E.2d 862 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)
Ravan Construction Co. v. Smith
522 S.E.2d 293 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
474 S.E.2d 240, 222 Ga. App. 339, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 2852, 1996 WL 397284, 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ware-v-handy-storage-gactapp-1996.