In support of this argument, Kaufold cites the case of Hopkinson v. Labovitz, which affirmed a trial court's finding of no evidence of damages with, among other holdings, the following language. 263 Ga. App. 702 ( 589 SE2d 255) (2003). While Hopkinson introduced testimony that she would not have made the agreement she made if she had known her ex-husband's true income, Labovitz presented evidence that her ex-husband would not have settled for a higher amount than he did. Because it takes both parties to reach an agreement, she has not shown that she could have settled her divorce for higher alimony.
Kyles did not appeal that ruling, and, accordingly, this Court did not address that issue on appeal. Therefore, the only "law of the case" resulting from that opinion were our holdings on the issues appealed, which related to the duties defined by Scindia and the ISM Code relating to ship owners. Hopkinson v. Labovitz, 263 Ga. App. 702, 704 (1) (a) ( 589 SE2d 255) (2003). We conclude that nothing in this Court's earlier opinion precluded the trial court from granting summary judgment on the ground that ECL, as a time charterer, has no liability to Kyles.
Glynn County Fed. Employees Credit Union v. Peagler, 256 Ga. 342, 344 (2) ( 348 SE2d 628) (1986).Stiefel v. Schick, 260 Ga. 638, 639 (2) ( 398 SE2d 194) (1990); Hopkinson v. Labovitz, 263 Ga. App. 702, 705 (1) (b) ( 589 SE2d 255) (2003). (Punctuation omitted.)