WHITNEY GARLAND v. PROVECTUS UNUM, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 13, 2026
DocketA26A1371
StatusPublished

This text of WHITNEY GARLAND v. PROVECTUS UNUM, LLC (WHITNEY GARLAND v. PROVECTUS UNUM, LLC) 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
WHITNEY GARLAND v. PROVECTUS UNUM, LLC, (Ga. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ April 13, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26A1371. WHITNEY GARLAND et al v. PROVECTUS UNUM, LLC.

Plaintiffs Whitney Garland and Thomas Nichols sued Provectus Unum, LLC asserting claims arising out of Provectus’s alleged breach of a construction contract. After Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit without prejudice, the trial court entered an order reopening the case on the docket, citing Provectus’s pending counterclaim for attorney fees. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim, and Provectus filed a motion seeking an award of attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 and OCGA § 9-11-68. After conducting a hearing, the trial court entered an order denying Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the counterclaim and awarding attorney fees to Provectus pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14(b). Plaintiffs then filed this direct appeal from the trial court’s order awarding attorney fees. We lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Appeals from orders awarding attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 must be made by discretionary application rather than direct appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(10); Capricorn Sys., Inc. v. Godavarthy, 253 Ga. App. 840, 842 (560 SE2d 730) (2002). See Cook-Rose v. Waffle House, Inc., 320 Ga. 567, 569(2) (910 SE2d 562) (2024) (noting that appeal from trial court’s order awarding attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 following voluntary dismissal of lawsuit required a discretionary application under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(10)). Because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the discretionary appeal procedure, we are deprived of jurisdiction. See Low v. Swift, 367 Ga. App. 874, 876 (889 SE2d 122) (2023). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 04/13/2026 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

Capricorn Systems, Inc. v. Godavarthy
560 S.E.2d 730 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2002)
COOK-ROSE v. WAFFLE HOUSE INC.
910 S.E.2d 562 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
WHITNEY GARLAND v. PROVECTUS UNUM, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitney-garland-v-provectus-unum-llc-gactapp-2026.