FINANCIAL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. v. Cornelison, A99A1026.
| Decision Date | 28 April 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. A99A1026.,A99A1026. |
| Citation | 516 S.E.2d 844,238 Ga. App. 223 |
| Parties | FINANCIAL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. v. CORNELISON et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Morris & Witcher, Robert P. Witcher, Joseph H. King, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Cornelison & Van Gelderen, Rex P. Cornelison III, Roswell, for appellees.
Financial Investment Group, Inc. ("Financial Investment") directly appeals the trial court's order dismissing four out of five counts in its complaint against four of five named defendants. Because we find the trial court's order was interlocutory and not directly appealable, we dismiss Financial Investment's appeal.
The record shows that Financial Investment sued Harold King, Rex P. Cornelison III, Judy Cornelison, Joe Flesher and Ray Simmons to enjoin a foreclosure sale, determine issues of title and recover money damages. The complaint asserted five theories of recovery in five separate counts: tender (Count 1); clogging and fettering the right of redemption (Count 2); slander of title (Count 3); delivery of quiet title (Count 4); and injunction against foreclosure (Count 5). Defendants Joe Flesher and Ray Simmons filed a counterclaim against Financial Investment with their answers. Defendants Rex P. Cornelison III and Judy Cornelison separately moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to dismiss Financial Investments' complaint. Defendants Joe Flesher and Ray Simmons moved for summary judgment in their favor on all counts of Financial Investment's complaint, as well as partial summary judgment in their favor on Count 1 of their counterclaims.
After a hearing on these motions, the trial court entered an order in favor of these defendants that dismissed Counts 1 and 2 of Financial Investment's complaint because they failed to state a cause of action as a matter of law. When the trial court announced its ruling on these counts at the hearing, it specifically noted that it was not necessary for it to make factual determinations to dismiss these counts.
The trial court also dismissed Counts 4 and 5 because Financial Investment lacked standing to bring the claims asserted in these counts. With regard to Count 3, the trial court gave Financial Investment seven days from the date of its order to properly plead a cause of action for slander of title. It further stated that it would grant a dismissal on Count 3 if Financial Investment failed to properly amend its complaint within this time period. Finally, the trial court denied Flesher's and Simmons' motions for partial summary judgment on their counterclaims. The trial court did not designate its order on these motions as a final judgment and did not expressly determine "that there is no just reason for delay." See OCGA § 9-11-54(b). In this direct appeal, Financial Investment asserts that the trial court erred when it dismissed Counts 1, 2, and 4 of its complaint against Rex Cornelison, Judy Cornelison, Joe Flesher, and Ray Simmons. Appellees contend this appeal should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Camp v. Coweta County
...and the order opening default is not yet appealable, absent the certificate of immediate review. Financial Investment Group v. Cornelison, 238 Ga.App. 223, 516 S.E.2d 844 (1999); Knowles v. Old Spartan Life Ins. Co., 213 Ga.App. 204, 205(2), 444 S.E.2d 136 (1994); Cherry v. Hersch, 193 Ga.A......
- Mathis v. State
-
Rhymes v. East Atlanta Church of God, Inc.
...forth in OCGA § 5-6-34(b), we do not have jurisdiction and accordingly dismiss this appeal. [Cit.] Financial Investment Group v. Cornelison, 238 Ga.App. 223, 224, 516 S.E.2d 844 (1999). The request of Appellants pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6 for the imposition of a penalty for frivolous ......
-
City of Dublin Sch. Dist. v. MMT Holdings, LLC
...liabilities of fewer than all parties, is not final absent certification from the trial court); Financial Investment Group, Inc. v. Cornelison , 238 Ga. App. 223, 224, 516 S.E.2d 844 (1999) (same). Because this case is still pending in the trial court and there are issues remaining to be re......