White v. Lumpkin, S00A0824.
| Decision Date | 08 May 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. S00A0824.,S00A0824. |
| Parties | WHITE v. LUMPKIN |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kenneth E. White III, pro se.
Eugene H. Polleys, Jr., Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rotschild, John M. Sheftall, Robert C. Martin, Jr., Carter R. Page, Joseph L. Waldrep, Page, Scrantom, Sprouse, Tucker & Ford, Charles H. Ford, Jr., Columbus, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Alison P. Spencer, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
In previous proceedings in the probate court, Kenneth White III moved for recusal of Judge Julia Lumpkin. After denying this motion, Judge Lumpkin dismissed White's caveat and related petitions attacking the probate of the will of Elizabeth Dedman Heard Bosch, deceased, with prejudice, and dismissed his declaratory judgment action without prejudice. An appeal from these prior orders of dismissal is currently pending in the Court of Appeals. White refiled the declaratory judgment action in the probate court and again moved to disqualify Judge Lumpkin. He subsequently filed a petition for mandamus in superior court, seeking either the disqualification of Judge Lumpkin from hearing the renewed declaratory judgment action or, in the alternative, a transfer of the recusal motion pending therein. The superior court granted Judge Lumpkin's motion to dismiss the mandamus proceeding, because White has the legal remedy of appealing any adverse decision on his motion to recuse. In the same order, the superior court also denied White's motion for summary judgment and granted Judge Lumpkin's motion for summary judgment and White appeals.
In the event that Judge Lumpkin denies White's motion to recuse in the pending declaratory judgment action, White may seek an interlocutory appeal therefrom or pursue the issue in the context of an appeal from an adverse final judgment. Chandler v. Davis, 269 Ga. 727, 728, 504 S.E.2d 440 (1998). Chandler v. Davis, supra. Because mandamus is not an appropriate remedy, the trial court correctly dismissed this case. It follows that the issue of summary judgment is moot. See Riel v. Paulding County Bd. of Ed., 206 Ga.App. 230, 232(2), 425 S.E.2d 305 (1992).
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. Murphy
...recusal motion has the option to seek an interlocutory appeal or to appeal directly after an adverse final judgment See White v. Lumpkin, 272 Ga. 398, 529 S.E.2d 879 (2000); Chandler v. Davis, 269 Ga. 727, 728, 504 S.E.2d 440 (1998). We, too, have held that the appeal of an interlocutory or......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Lawrence
...supra, 273 Ga. at 433, 543 S.E.2d 16 (mandamus not available to review judicial denial of motion to dismiss case); White v. Lumpkin, 272 Ga. 398, 529 S.E.2d 879 (2000) (mandamus not available to review judicial decision to deny recusal motion); Tamaroff v. Cowen, 270 Ga. 415, 511 S.E.2d 159......
-
Montia v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co.
...submitting the case to a special master, so we affirm. Given this disposition, the issue of summary judgment is moot. White v. Lumpkin , 272 Ga. 398, 529 S.E.2d 879 (2000).This action involves real property acquired by Montia in 2003. The property is subject to two recorded deeds to secure ......
-
Holmes v. State
... ... crimes, appellant and his codefendants, Lorenzo Lindsey and Theodore Allen, were driving in a white Toronado loaned to appellant by a friend. They decided to commit a drive-by shooting and chose to ... ...