Smith v. Millsap
Citation | 364 Ga.App. 162,874 S.E.2d 184 |
Decision Date | 07 June 2022 |
Docket Number | A22A0429 |
Parties | SMITH et al. v. MILLSAP et al. |
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Hawkins Parnell & Young, Kathryn S. Whitlock, Stephen William Rothring, Charles G. Foster; Krevolin & Horst, Halsey George Knapp, Jr., Jessica G. Cino, for Appellants.
Anderson Tate & Carr, Thomas T. Tate, Robert Dewitt Thomas, Tyler Austin Dillard, Duluth, Jaletta Long Smith, for Appellee.
Attorney John Da Grosa Smith represented Ryan Millsap in a business dispute between Millsap and his former partner, James Schulz. While that case was still pending, Smith became concerned that he would not be fully compensated for his work, and he filed an attorney's lien under OCGA § 15-19-14 (b). Millsap moved to have the lien cancelled, and the trial court granted the motion. In this appeal, Smith challenges the trial court's order, asserting that this Court has jurisdiction over his appeal under the collateral order doctrine despite the lack of a final order in the underlying lawsuit. For the reasons that follow, we disagree, and therefore, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
[T]he validity and enforceability of an attorney's lien, and the amount of fees to award the attorney enforcing the lien, are matters for the trial court to decide. Where the trial court is the factfinder, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to support the court's judgment and will uphold the court's factual findings on appeal if there is any evidence to support them. With respect to questions of law, however, we employ a de novo standard of review.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) McWay v. McKenney's, Inc. , 359 Ga. App. 547, 547-548, 859 S.E.2d 523 (2021). Because jurisdiction is a question of law, we apply a de novo standard of review. In re Estate of Cornett , 357 Ga. App. 310, 313 (1), 850 S.E.2d 790 (2020).
So viewed, the record shows that this case originated as a dispute between former business partners, Millsap and Schulz, in connection with the creation of a movie studio on property in Atlanta. Smith was general counsel for Blackhall Real Estate, one of the companies holding the property on which the studio was built. During the course of the litigation between Millsap and Schulz, Smith and his firm Smith LLC (collectively ‘‘Smith’’) also became counsel of record for Millsap and the other named defendant companies.1 Eventually, the trial court ordered the dispute between Millsap and Schulz to arbitration and stayed the proceedings, but it retained jurisdiction to enter final judgment following the conclusion of arbitration.
Thereafter, Schulz and Millsap entered into an agreement to permit the sale of Blackhall Real Estate's land, with a portion of the proceeds distributed to Millsap and Schulz, and the remainder placed in the court registry. Smith moved to withdraw as counsel, and he filed an attorney's lien pursuant to OCGA § 15-19-14 (b), seeking compensation for his services rendered in negotiating the real estate transaction and defending Millsap in Schulz's suit.2
Millsap filed an emergency motion to cancel the lien, arguing that it was invalid, and that if it was not removed, the real estate deal would not close. Following a hearing, at which Millsap was represented by new counsel, the trial court granted the motion and cancelled the lien, but reserved ruling on the merits of any claim Smith might have for attorney fees against the defendants. Smith filed the instant appeal, and then filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's order cancelling his lien, which the trial court also denied.3
1. Before we consider the merits of Smith's arguments regarding the cancellation of his lien, we first address whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal because there was no final order in the underlying case between Millsap and Schulz. Smith argues that we have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine because the issue of an attorney's lien has been completely decided and is separate from the underlying suit, and there is a likelihood that he will lose access to the funds if he has to wait for a final judgment in the underlying litigation. He compares the cancellation of an attorney's lien to the cancellation of a lis pendens, which would be directly appealable.
"It is well established that this Court has a solemn duty to inquire into our jurisdiction to review the errors enumerated on appeal, and it is a duty we do not take lightly." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ford v. Ford , 347 Ga. App. 233, 818 S.E.2d 690 (2018). Generally, we have jurisdiction over a direct appeal from a final order. OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). Where there is no final order, a party must comply with the rules for an interlocutory appeal, which require obtaining a certificate of review from the trial court and permission from this Court to bring the appeal.4 OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Settendown Pub. Utility v. Waterscape Utility , 324 Ga. App. 652, 656, 751 S.E.2d 463 (2013) ; see also Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord , 449 U. S. 368, 376 (II), 101 S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981) ( )(citations and punctuation omitted). Although we may consider federal law when determining whether the collateral order doctrine applies, Warren v. State , 297 Ga. 810, 811, n. 2, 778 S.E.2d 749 (2015), our Supreme Court has also cautioned that "the jurisdiction of the courts of Georgia is not a federal issue upon which the decision of [federal courts] would be controlling, but derives from the constitutional and statutory law of this state."5 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Rivera , 298 Ga. at 775-776, 784 S.E.2d 775.6 With these guiding principles in mind, we turn to whether an order cancelling an attorney's lien is directly appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
This question presents an issue of first impression in our courts. Attorney's liens are authorized under OCGA § 15-19-14. "Being in derogation of the common law, lien laws, including the attorney's lien statute, must be strictly construed." Ellis, Funk, Goldberg, Labovitz & Dokson, P.C. v. Kleinberger , 235 Ga. App. 360, 361 (1), 509 S.E.2d 660 (1998). As we have explained, "liens exist to ensure that an attorney is compensated for the fruits of his labor and skill whether realized by judgment or decree, or by virtue of an award, or in any other way, so long as they are the result of his exertions." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Tolson v. Sistrunk , 332 Ga. App. 324, 329 (1), 772 S.E.2d 416 (2015).
Here, Smith sought to impose the lien under OCGA § 15-19-14 (b) on any money obtained as part of the real estate deal. Under OCGA § 15-19-14 (b), an attorney has the right "to impose a lien upon actions, judgments, and decrees for money, and prevents the satisfaction of such an action, judgment, or decree until the claim of the attorney for his fees is fully satisfied."7 (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Howe & Assoc. P.C. v. Daniels , 280 Ga. 803, 804, 631 S.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips v. Almont Homes NE, Inc.
... ... (explaining that whether property satisfied requirements of ... OCGA § 44-14-610 was a question of law); Smith v ... Millsap, __ Ga.App.__, __ (874 S.E.2d 184, 186) (June 7, ... 2022) (explaining that this Court applies de novo ... review to ... ...
- Claybrooks v. Claybrooks
-
Phillips v. Almont Homes NE, Inc.
...(2001) (explaining that whether property satisfied requirements of OCGA § 44-14-610 was a question of law); Smith v. Millsap , 364 Ga. App. 162, 163, 874 S.E.2d 184, 186 (2022) (explaining that this Court applies de novo review to questions of law).4 See OCGA § 44-14-610 ("No action, whethe......