Temple v. Hillegass
Decision Date | 05 February 2018 |
Docket Number | A17A1719 |
Citation | 810 S.E.2d 625 |
Parties | TEMPLE v. HILLEGASS et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Andy Clark Law, M. Andrew Clark, Suwanee, for appellant.
Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet, J. Robb Cruser, Kathleen M. Hurley, Jena G. Emory, Norcross, for appellees.
In Temple v. Hillegass , 340 Ga. App. 189, 796 S.E.2d 899 (2017), we vacated the trial court order dismissing Tandra Temple’s appeal for delay in transmitting the record to the appellate court. We directed the trial court to make the findings required by OCGA § 5-6-48 (c) about the delay. Temple now appeals the trial court’s post-appeal order that again dismissed her appeal but this time contained those required findings. Because the trial court entered the order before it had received the remittitur from the first appeal, it lacked jurisdiction and its order is a nullity and void. We thus vacate the order and remand the case to the trial court.1
Massey v. Massey , 294 Ga. 163, 166 (3), 751 S.E.2d 330 (2013) (citation and punctuation omitted). Since the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter it, the order Temple appeals is a nullity and void. See Chambers v. State , 262 Ga. 200, 201-202, 415 S.E.2d 643 (1992) ; Tavakolian v. Agio Corp. , 309 Ga. App. 652, 653-654 (1), 711 S.E.2d 33 (2011).
The appellees Atkins v. Estate of Callaway , 329 Ga. App. 8, 10 (1), 763 S.E.2d 369 (2014) (physical precedent only). See also Grant v. State , 304 Ga. App. 133, 137-138 (2), 695 S.E.2d 420 (2010) (, )overruled on other grounds by Mayor & Aldermen of the City of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co. , 291 Ga. 114, 728 S.E.2d 189 (2012).
The appellees cite two cases for the proposition that we should address the merits of the appeal because Temple has not shown harm. The first case, Dept. ofTransp. v. Petkas , 189 Ga. App. 633, 377 S.E.2d 166 (1988), is distinguishable. It did not involve the appeal of a judgment the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter. The second case, Monterrey Mexican Restaurant of Wise v. Leon , 282 Ga. App. 439, 638 S.E.2d 879 (2006), does support the appellees’ position. In that case, we observed that we had dismissed the appellants’ prior appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 440, n.3, 638 S.E.2d 879. The appeal that was then before the court was an appeal of the amended order entered after our dismissal of the earlier, jurisdictionally-flawed appeal but before the remittitur for the jurisdictionally-flawed appeal had been filed in the trial court. Id. at 440 n. 4, 638 S.E.2d 879 We held that, "[a]lthough the lower court was technically without jurisdiction to enter the [a]mended [o]rder, nonetheless we are entertaining this appeal in the interest of judicial economy." Id. at 440, n. 4, 638 S.E.2d 879.
But, as our Supreme Court has held, this sort of jurisdictional defect cannot be waived. Tolbert v. Toole , 296 Ga. 357, 361 (2), 767 S.E.2d 24 (2014). Thus we must reject the appellees’ invitation to ignore the jurisdictional flaw and overrule Monterrey Mexican Restaurant of Wise , 282 Ga. App. at 439, 638 S.E.2d 879, to the extent it implies that we can do so.
Temple requests that we order the trial court to reassign the case to another judge since the trial court has twice erroneously dismissed Temple’s appeal. We deny Temple’s request. Compare Dowdy v. Palmour , 251 Ga. 135, 143 (3), 304 S.E.2d 52 (1983) ( ); Newton v. Golden Grove Pecan Farm , 309 Ga. App. 764, 772-773 (3), 711 S.E.2d 351 (2011) ( ).
Judgment vacated and case remanded.
1 This is the first opinion implementing our new procedure for overruling our prior opinions. We adopted it under the increased authority over our procedures the General Assembly afforded us in the Appellate Jurisdiction Reform Act of 2016, Ga. L. 2016, p. 883, § 2-1.
Under our former procedure, whenever a participating judge proposed that one of our prior opinions be overruled, every member of this Court was required to vote on—and so assume full responsibility for—the entire opinion. We adopted that procedure in light of former OCGA § 15-3-1 (d) which provided:
How decision overruled . It being among the purposes of this Code section to avoid and reconcile conflicts among the decisions made by less than all of the Judges on the court and to secure more...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
White v. State
...[between the holdings in two Court of Appeals cases], then [the newer case] must yield to the older decision."); Temple v. Hillegass, 344 Ga. App. 454, 810 S.E.2d 625 (2018)(outlining manner in which cases can be overruled by Court of Appeals pursuant to mandates set forth in OCGA § 15-3-1 ......
-
Four Seasons Trucking, Inc. v. Crawford (In re Crawford)
...of Wise, Inc. v. Leon, 282 Ga. App. 439, 453, 638 S.E.2d 879, 891-892 (2006), overruled on other grounds, Temple v. Hillegass, 344 Ga. App. 454, 810 S.E.2d 625 (2018) ("[T]he United requirement of apportionment does not depend on the reason for the grant of attorney fees pursuant to O.C.G.A......
-
Wilson v. Wernowsky
...Restaurant of Wise v. Leon , 282 Ga. App. 439, 452 (6) (d), 638 S.E.2d 879 (2006), overruled on other grounds, Temple v. Hillegass , 344 Ga. App. 454, 455, 810 S.E.2d 625 (2018). However, Georgia law recognizes an exception to the general rule that the party seeking fees bears the burden of......
-
Pathfinder Payment Solutions, Inc. v. Global Payments Direct, Inc.
...and Robinwood, Inc. v. Baker , 206 Ga. App. 202, 425 S.E.2d 353 (1992). See Temple v. Hillegass, 344 Ga. App. 454, 454 n. 1, 810 S.E.2d 625, 2018 WL 702157 (Case No. A17A1719; decided February 5, 2018) (explaining new procedure for overruling this Court’s prior opinions).2 Torres v. Elkin ,......