Woods v. Hall

• Decision Date: 22 March 2012
• Docket Number: No. A11A2349.,A11A2349.
• Citation: 726 S.E.2d 596,12 FCDR 1222,315 Ga.App. 93
• Parties: WOODS v. HALL et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

315 Ga.App. 93
726 S.E.2d 596
12 FCDR 1222

WOODS
v.
HALL et al.

No. A11A2349.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 22, 2012.

Mell Woods, pro se.

Charles D. Gatch, for Appellee.

DILLARD, Judge.

[315 Ga.App. 93]In this civil tort action, Mell Woods, acting pro se, sued Bruce Hall and several unknown defendants, alleging that Hall's filing a simple battery charge against him constituted

[726 S.E.2d 597]

malicious prosecution. Following the trial court's grant of summary judgment in Hall's favor, Woods appeals, arguing that (1) genuine issues of material fact exist as to his malicious prosecution claim, and that the trial court erred in [315 Ga.App. 94](2) excluding his affidavit from consideration because it was not timely filed, (3) awarding attorney fees to Hall's counsel, and (4) exhibiting prejudice toward Woods. For the reasons set forth infra, we vacate the grant of summary judgment and the award of attorney fees to Hall's counsel, and we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,¹ the record shows that Woods and Hall were neighbors, who, in late 2001 or early 2002, became involved in a heated dispute based on Hall's alleged failure to control his large and less-than-friendly dog. This dispute ultimately culminated in Woods shooting and killing the dog. As a result, Hall swore out an arrest warrant for Woods in the Superior Court of Liberty County. Woods eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge stemming from that incident and received a probated sentence.

On February 1, 2002, not long after the dog-shooting incident, Woods and Hall's ongoing neighborhood dispute led to an altercation in which Woods allegedly hit Hall. Consequently, on April 8, 2002, Hall swore out another arrest warrant for Woods in the Magistrate Court of Liberty County, which charged Woods with simple battery. The warrant was signed that same day by a magistrate court judge. Woods was bonded out immediately on his own recognizance, and thereafter, he retained counsel, who filed various motions related to the case, including a demand for a jury trial.

The case then languished for several years. But on August 2, 2006, Woods's defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss, which stated,

(1) Per the agreement, the State agreed that in the event that the Defendant completed his Superior Court probation without incident that the State Court charges would be dismissed. (2) The Defendant completed his Superior Court case probation without further incident. Wherefore, Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the charges.

The proposed order attached to that motion was not signed by the trial court. Nevertheless, on January 30, 2007, the State moved for an entry of nolle prosequi on the charge, which the trial court accepted.

Two years later, Woods sued Hall and several “John Doe” defendants in the State Court of Glynn County, alleging that the warrant charging Woods with simple battery constituted malicious prosecution. Hall filed an answer, denying the allegations and asserting that [315 Ga.App. 95]the Superior Court of Liberty County was the proper venue for the matter. Additionally, Hall's answer contained a counterclaim against Woods for abusive litigation. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the State Court of Liberty County.

Following discovery, Hall filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Woods failed to show that Hall was liable for malicious prosecution as a matter of law. And on December 27, 2010, the trial court held a status conference to schedule a hearing date for argument on Hall's motion. During that conference, Hall's counsel informed the trial court that Woods had, on that day, filed a motion to add counsel as a party defendant but had not sought the court's permission to do so. Perplexed by Woods's actions, the trial court informed him that if he failed to provide a legal basis for adding Hall's counsel as a defendant by the time the hearing on Hall's motion for summary judgment was held, Woods would be subject to sanctions.

On January 28, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on Hall's counsel's motion to dismiss himself as a defendant and Hall's motion for summary judgment. After first hearing argument on the motion to dismiss, the trial court granted it ² and awarded $1,500 in attorney

[726 S.E.2d 598]

fees to Hall's counsel. The court then heard argument on Hall's motion for summary judgment, after which it granted Hall's motion. Thereafter the trial court issued separate orders granting the motion by Hall's counsel and assessing $1,500 in attorney fees against Woods and granting Hall's motion for summary judgment. This appeal follows.

Before we address the merits of Woods's claims of error, we note that contrary to Court of Appeals Rule 25(c)(2),³ none of Woods's enumerated errors is supported by citations to the record or argument, and only one is followed by a citation of authority. We recognize that Woods is acting pro se; nevertheless, “that status does not relieve [him] of the obligation to comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of the law, including the rules of this Court.” ⁴ Specifically, Woods's claims that the trial court erred in excluding from consideration Woods's affidavit, awarding attorney fees to...