Lotman v. Adamson Contracting, Inc., A95A2129
| Decision Date | 23 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. A95A2129,A95A2129 |
| Citation | 467 S.E.2d 224,219 Ga.App. 898 |
| Parties | LOTMAN et al. v. ADAMSON CONTRACTING, INC. et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Voluntary dismissal. Gwinnett Superior Court. Before Judge Oxendine.
Marlow, Bozeman & Young, C. Michael Bozeman, Atlanta, for appellants.
Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Paul L. Weisbecker, K. Marc Barre, Atlanta, for appellees.
Harold and Tham Lotman filed a breach of contract and negligence action against Adamson Contracting, Inc., and Michael Adamson (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Adamson Contracting"). Adamson Contracting moved for summary judgment and argued its motion on May 3, 1995. The Lotmans failed to appear at the motion hearing, but filed a brief in opposition to the motion on May 3, 1995, after the hearing took place. On May 4, 1995, the Lotmans filed a written notice of dismissal without prejudice. Five days later, the trial court entered an order granting Adamson Contracting's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Lotmans argue that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment after the action had been dismissed. We agree and reverse.
See Smith v. Mem. Med. Ctr., 208 Ga.App. 26, 28(1), 430 S.E.2d 57 (1993). The voluntary dismissal filed in this case operated to divest the court of jurisdiction, after which the trial court had no authority to enter summary judgment. See id. That the trial court made the order nunc pro tunc to the hearing date was of no consequence, because at the time the written order was entered, the action had already been extinguished and the court no longer had jurisdiction. See generally Dept. of Med. Assistance v. Columbia Convalescent Ctr., 203 Ga.App. 535, 536(1), 417 S.E.2d 195 (1992).
We realize, of course, that there is an exception to the general rule that the filing of a voluntary dismissal before verdict divests the court of jurisdiction: A plaintiff cannot dismiss an action between the time the court announces its judgment and the time the judgment is actually written and entered. Kilby v. Keener, 249 Ga. 667, 668, 293 S.E.2d 318 (1982). Adamson Contracting's argument that this exception applies in this case because the trial court orally announced at the hearing its intent to grant the motion is not persuasive because it is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Atlanta Cas. Co.
...judgment on the declaratory judgment. Lakes v. Marriott Corp., 264 Ga. 475, 478, 448 S.E.2d 203 (1994); Lotman v. Adamson Contracting, 219 Ga.App. 898, 467 S.E.2d 224 (1996); Smith v. Mem. Med. Center, 208 Ga.App. 26, 28(1), 430 S.E.2d 57 (1993). While a plaintiff is entitled to voluntarily......
-
Gallagher v. Fiderion Group, LLC
...it "operate[s] to divest the court of jurisdiction, after which the trial court [has] no authority to enter" additional orders, Lotman v. Adamson Contracting,6 with the possible exception of OCGA § 9-15-14 awards, which are not at issue here. See Harris v. Werner.7 See generally Lakes v. Ma......
-
Baker v. Atl. States Ins. Co.
...[such a] dismissal, a court has no power to order reinstatement of the action." (Citations omitted.) Lotman v. Adamson Contracting , 219 Ga. App. 898, 898, 467 S.E.2d 224 (1996). See, e.g., C & S Indus. Supply Co. v. Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co. , 199 Ga. App. 197, 198, 404 S.E.2d 34......
-
Purvis v. Ballantine
...the time the court announces its judgment and the time the judgment is actually written and entered." Lotman v. Adamson Contracting, 219 Ga.App. 898, 899, 467 S.E.2d 224 (1996). Since the court's announcement of summary judgment preceded Purvis' dismissal, the dismissal was null and void. P......