From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Butler v. Gray

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jan 14, 1986
177 Ga. App. 498 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)

Summary

In Butler v. Gray, 177 Ga.App. 498, 339 S.E.2d 769 (1986), for example, we granted a motion to dismiss a direct appeal for a failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures, but also denied appellee's requests for a frivolous appeal penalty and direction to the trial court on remand, noting that the appellant's failure to follow the appeal procedures "does not invoke the jurisdiction of this court and consequently deprives this court of the power to act upon [appellee's] requests for any action beyond the motion to dismiss."

Summary of this case from Ga. Dep't of Cmty. Health v. Neal

Opinion

71482.

DECIDED JANUARY 14, 1986.

Dispossessory. Fulton State Court. Before Judge Thompson.

Roman A. DeVille, for appellant.

Robert L. Simmons, for appellee.


This litigation apparently grows out of continuing disputes arising from a divorce. It would appear the ex-wife occupies a residence allegedly owned by the ex-husband, but which ownership is contested by the ex-wife. A writ of possession was sought by the ex-husband demanding a per diem rental, back rental and a limited right of entry to effect repairs. On the day set for hearing, neither the ex-wife (Butler) nor her attorney appeared, her answer was stricken, and per diem and back rental was ordered to be paid into the registry of the court. Subsequently, Butler's counsel and Butler herself appeared at a hearing to set aside the default judgment. This motion to set aside the default was granted, thus reinstating the case for future trial. The court again ordered the payment of past and accruing rental into the registry of the court.

Butler then filed a notice of direct appeal to this court complaining that the rental rate established by the court was unreasonable. Inasmuch as the merits of the case are pending in the trial court, Ms. Butler was required to seek application for an interlocutory appeal as mandated by OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). No such application has been filed in this court as required. Therefore, this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Bowers v. Price, 168 Ga. App. 125 ( 308 S.E.2d 420); Gulf Oil Co. v. Mantegna, 167 Ga. App. 844 ( 307 S.E.2d 732).

Appellee Gray has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal which we hereby have granted. Additionally, Gray seeks the imposition of a 10% penalty and attorney fees based upon a frivolous appeal plus remand with direction to the trial court. However in order for this court to consider and rule upon these requests by Gray, this court would have to have jurisdiction over the appeal. As observed hereinabove, the failure to follow proper procedure by Butler does not invoke the jurisdiction of this court and consequently deprives this court of the power to act upon Gray's requests for any action beyond the motion to dismiss.

Appeal dismissed. Carley and Sognier, JJ., concur.


DECIDED JANUARY 14, 1986.


Summaries of

Butler v. Gray

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jan 14, 1986
177 Ga. App. 498 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)

In Butler v. Gray, 177 Ga.App. 498, 339 S.E.2d 769 (1986), for example, we granted a motion to dismiss a direct appeal for a failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures, but also denied appellee's requests for a frivolous appeal penalty and direction to the trial court on remand, noting that the appellant's failure to follow the appeal procedures "does not invoke the jurisdiction of this court and consequently deprives this court of the power to act upon [appellee's] requests for any action beyond the motion to dismiss."

Summary of this case from Ga. Dep't of Cmty. Health v. Neal
Case details for

Butler v. Gray

Case Details

Full title:BUTLER v. GRAY

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jan 14, 1986

Citations

177 Ga. App. 498 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)
339 S.E.2d 769

Citing Cases

Ga. Dep't of Cmty. Health v. Neal

We cannot take such actions, however. In Butler v. Gray , 177 Ga.App. 498, 339 S.E.2d 769 (1986), for…

Bryan v. Bryan

Where, as here, a party seeks review of an order that is not directly appealable and the merits of the case…