FOURTH D I VI SI ON

DI L LA RD, P. J.

, M ERCI ER and M A RKLE, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

June 15, 2022



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 2 A0 41 7 . L. SCOTT BORN et al . v . BRUCE G. BORN et al

.

D I LLA R D , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

Bru ce Bo rn an d h i s wi fe, Ph y l l i s (“ p l ai n t i ffs ”), fi l ed a l aws u i t ag ai n s t t h ei r s o n,

L. Sco t t Bo rn , an d h is wi fe, Li s a (“ d efen d an t s ”), s eek i n g a wri t o f p o s s es s i o n as to

p ro p ert y t h ey o wn ed an d rel at ed d am ag es

. Th e defen d an t s fi l ed an an s wer an d

co u nt ercl ai m s , al l eg in g s ev eral eq u i t ab l e d efen s es an d t h at t h e p l ai n t i ffs g i ft ed t h em

t h e p ro p ert y

. Up o n t h e p l a i n t i f f s ’ m o t i o n , t h e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed p art i al s u m m ary

ju d g m en t t o t h em as t o t h e d efen d an t s ’ cl ai m t h at t h e p ro p ert y was a g i ft

, as wel l as

t o t h e d efen d an t s ’ cl ai m s fo r s p eci fi c p erfo rm an ce, an d i t i s s u ed t h e pl ai n t i ffs a wri t

o f p o s s es s i o n

. Th ereaft er, t h e d efen d an ts fi l ed an ap p l i cat io n fo r an i n t erl o cu t o ry

ap p eal

, wh i ch we d en i ed

. In d oi n g s o , t h i s Co urt no t e d th at t h e d efen d an t s h ad t h eri gh t to a d i rect ap p eal un d er O CGA § 9 -1 1 -5 6 (h ), bu t becau s e t h ei r ap p l i cat i o n was

u n t i m el y , we l ack ed ju ri s d i ct i o n an d , t h u s , i t was s u b ject t o d i s m is sal

.

Fo l l owi n g t h at d i s m i s s al

, t h e t ri al co u rt —at th e defen d an t s’ b eh es t

— m o d i fi ed

i t s p rev io u s o rd er an d i m

m ed i at el y i s s u ed an o rd er s im i l arl y g ran t i n g p art i al s u m m ary

ju d g m en t t o t h e pl ai n t i f f s b u t n o w d ecl i n i n g t o i s su e a wri t of p o ss es s i o n

. Th e

d efen d an t s t h en fi l ed t h is ti m el y ap peal o f t h at o rd er, arg u i n g t h e t ri al co u rt erred in

ru l i n g (1 ) t h e St at u t e o f Frau d s b arred t h e defen d an t s ’ cl ai m t hat t h e p l ai nt i ffs g i ft ed

t h em th e pro p ert y , an d (2 ) t h ei r eq u i t ab l e d efen s es were in ap p li cab l e. In res p on s e, t h e

p l ai n t i ffs co n t en d ou r d i sm i s s al o f t h e d efen dan t s ’ p ri o r i n t erl o cu t o r y ap p l i cat i o n

affi rm ed t h e t r i a l co u rt ’ s i n i t i al g ran t o f p art i al s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, an d t h u s , t h e

d o ct r i n e o f r es j u d ica t a b arred t h e d efen d an ts ’ m o t i o n t o m o d i fy o r s et as i d e t h at

ru l i n g an d t hei r cu rren t ap p eal

. T h e p l a i n t iffs al t ern at i v el y arg u e t h at i f t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s o rd er s et t i n g as id e t he i n i t ial s u m m ary ju d g m en t o rd er i s n ot barred

, t h e co u rt

erred i n no w d en y i n g t h em a wri t o f p os s es s io n. Fo r t h e reas o n s s et fo rt h i n f r a , we

v acat e t he t ri al co urt ’ s o rd er m o d i fy i n g o r s et ti n g as i d e i t s i n it i al gran t o f p art i al

s u m m ary ju d g m en t an d rem an d t h e cas e fo r fu rt h er pro ceed i n gs co n s is ten t wi t h t h i s

o p i n i o n

.

2Vi ewed i n t h e l i gh t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e d efen d an t s , 1 th e reco rd s ho ws t h at in

1 9 8 5

, t h e p l ai n t i ffs acq ui red a res i d en ce o n an 1 1 -acre t ract o f p ro p ert y l o cat ed at 4 5 9

Ban dy L an e i n Ri ng g o l d, Cat o os a Co u nt y , Geo rg i a. In 19 9 4, t h e pl ai n t i ffs ex ecu t ed

a pro m i s s o ry n o t e fo r $ 9 4

, 5 0 0 wi t h Eq ui t y On e an d secu red t h e d eb t wi t h a s ecu ri t y

d eed to t h e res i d en ce an d fi v e acres o f t h e p ro pert y in fav o r o f t h at i n s ti t u t io n

. Un d er

t h e t erm s o f t h e no t e, th e lo an was t o m at ure an d b eco m e d u e an d p a y ab l e i n 2 0 0 9.

Nev ert h el es s , i n 1 99 7

, t h e p l ai n t i ffs m o ve d f r o m Ri n g g o l d t o New Orl ean s ,

Lo u is i an a, i n o rd er t o p urs u e a b u si n es s v en t ure. Co n s eq u en t ly

, t h e p ro p ert y was

v acan t fo r s ev eral y ears

.

In 2 0 0 5

, t he d efen d an t s

— t h e p l ai n t i ffs ’ s o n Sco t t an d hi s wi fe Li s a— s o l d t h ei r

h o m e an d reach ed an o ral ag reem en t wi th t h e pl ai n t i ffs

, wh er e b y t h e d efen d an t s

wo u l d rep ai r an d ren o v at e t h e 4 5 9 Ban d y Lan e p ro p ert y at t hei r o w n ex p en s e i n o rd er

t o m ak e i t su it ab l e as co l l at eral t o refi n an ce t h e Eq u i t y O n e l o an

. Ad d i t i o n al l y , t h e

p art i es ag reed t h at th e d efen d an t s wo u l d l i v e o n t h e p ro p ert y an d p ay t h e m o n t h l y

i n s t al l m en t s o n t h e pro sp ect i v e refi n an ced d eb t

. Su b s eq u en tl y , t he d efen d an t s s p en t

ap p ro x i m at el y $ 6 2,0 0 0— as w el l as a co n s i derab l e am o u n t o f t h ei r o wn

1 S ee, e.g

. , Gr es h am v. Ha r r i s , 3 4 9 G a. A p p

. 1 3 4, 1 3 8 (8 2 5 SE2 d 5 1 6 ) (2 0 1 9 ) (rev iewi n g s u m

m ary ju d g m en t b y co n s t ru i n g t h e ev i d en ce i n fav o r o f t h e

n o n m o v an t ).

3t i m e— rep ai ri n g an d ren o vat i n g t h e pro p ert y

. An d i n 2 00 6 , t h e p l ai n t i ffs refi n an ced

t h e Eq u i t y On e l oan , ex ecu t i n g a n o t e fo r $ 9 0

, 0 00 an d a s ecu ri t y d eed t o t h e p ro p ert y

as co l l at eral fo r t h e l o an i n fav o r o f Reg i on s Ban k

. Th e d eed al s o n o t ed t h at u p o n

p ay m en t o f t h e d eb t t h e p ro p ert y wo u l d b e reco n v ey ed t o t h e p l ai n t iffs

.

Th en , fo r cl o s e t o 14 y ears , t h e d efen d an t s l i ved on t h e pro p ert y an d

, fo r t h e

m o st part

, p ai d t he m on t h l y i n s t al l m en t s o n t h e pl ai nt i ffs ’ Reg i o n s Ban k l oan

. Bu t in

J u l y 20 1 9

, t h e p l ai n ti ffs i n fo rm ed t he d efen d an t s th at t h ey i n t en ded t o s el l t h e

p ro p ert y . An d o n Au gu s t 6

, 2 0 1 9 , t h e p l ai n t i ffs s en t a l et t er t o d efen d an t s ’ co u n s el

,

i n fo rm i n g co u ns el th at “ [ a ]t bes t

, [t h e defen d an t s ] h av e a t en an cy at w i l l t o o ccu py

t h e Pro p ert y .” Th e l et t er fu rt h er n ot ed t hat

, al t ho u gh t h e p l ai n t i ffs co u ld d em an d t h at

t h e d efen d an t s v acat e t h e p ro p ert y i m m ed i at el y , t h e p l ai n t i ffs wo u ld gi v e t h em 6 0

d ay s t o d o s o

— i .e. , b y Oct o b er 9 , 2 0 19 . Th e d efen d an t s refu s ed t o co m p l y wi t h t h e

d em an d , cl ai m i n g t h at t h e p l ai n t i ffs g i ft ed t h em t h e p ro p ert y

.

In l ig h t o f t h i s i m

p as s e, o n Oct o ber 1 6

, 2 0 19

, t he p l ai n t i ffs fi l ed a

d i s p o s s es s o ry act i o n in th e Cat o o s a Co u n t y M ag i s t rat e Co u rt

, seek i ng a wri t o f

p o s s es s i o n t o t h e p ro p ert y

. T h e d efen d an ts fi l ed an an swer an d co u n t ercl ai m s , at

wh i ch p o i n t t he m ag i st rat e co u rt t ran s ferred t h e cas e t o t h e Su peri o r Co u rt o f Cat o o s a

Co u n t y , as t h o s e co u n t ercl ai m s ex ceed ed t h e fo rm er co u rt ’ s s ub ject m at t er

4ju ri s d i ct i o n

. Th e pl ai n t i ffs t h en am en d ed t hei r co m p l a i nt

, ag ai n s eek i n g a wri t o f

p o ss es s i o n , an d ad d i n g, i n t er a l i a , cl ai m s fo r b reach o f co n tract

, co nv ers i o n , a n d

t res pas s t o b ai l ed p ro p ert y

. T h e d e fen d an t s fi l ed an am en d ed an s wer an d

co u nt ercl ai m s , al l eg in g sev eral eq u i t ab l e d efen s es an d t h at t h e p l ai n t i ffs g i ft ed t h em

t h e p ro p ert y . Di s co v ery t h en en s u ed

.

Fo l l owi n g d is co v ery , t h e p lai n t iffs fi l e d a m o t i o n fo r p art i al s u m m ary

ju d g m en t

, arg u i n g ( 1 ) t h e d efen d an t s ’ cl ai m t h at t h e p l ai n t i ffs g ift ed t h em t h e

p ro p ert y was b arred b y t h e St at ut e o f Frau d s, (2 ) n o s t at u t o ry o r eq ui t ab l e ex cep t i on s

t o t h e S t at u t e o f Frau d s were ap p l i cab l e, an d (3 ) t h ey w ere en t i t l ed t o a wr i t o f

p o s s es s i o n t o t h e p ro p ert y

. On J u l y 12

, 2 0 2 1, t h e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed p art i al s u m m ary

ju d g m en t i n fav o r of th e p l ai n t i ffs

, ru li n g —as th e p l ai n t i f f s h a d arg ued

— t h at t h e

d efen d an t s ’ cl ai m t h e p ro p ert y was a g i ft was b arred b y t he St at u t e of Frau ds an d n o

s t at u to ry o r eq ui t ab l e ex cep t i o n s t o t h e St at u t e o f Frau d s were ap p li cab l e. Th e co u rt

fu rt her ru l ed t h at t h e p l ai n ti ffs were en ti t l ed t o a w ri t o f p o s s es s i o n an d t h at i t wo u ld

b e effect i v e “ at t h e ex pi rat i on o f s ev en d ay s aft er t h e d at e o f t h i s o rd er.” Th at s am e

d ay , t h e tri al co urt al so i s s u ed a cert i fi cat e o f i m m ed i at e rev i ew, s t at i n g i n co rrect l y

5t h at t h e part i al g ran t o f s u m m ary ju d gm en t was n o t s u bject t o d i rect ap p eal

. 2 An d t en

d ay s l at er, o n J u l y 2 2, 2 0 2 1, t h e d efen d an t s fi l ed a p et it i on fo r i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p el l at e

rev i ew wi t h t h is Co u rt

.

On th e s am e d ay th e d efen d an t s fi l ed t h e fo reg o i n g pet i t i o n , th e Cat o o s a

Co u n t y Sh eri ff’ s Offi ce s erv ed t h em wi t h a n o t i ce i nfo rm i n g t h em t h at t h e t i m e fo r

ch al l en g i n g t h e d i s p o s s es s o ry warran t— i .e. , s ev en day s fro m t h e tri al co u rt ’s g ran t

o f p art i al s u m

m ary j u d g m en t

— h ad l ap s ed an d ord ered th em to im m ed i at el y v acat e

t h e p rem i s es

. T h e d efen d an t s s u b s eq u en t l y fi l e d a m o t i o n t o s t ay t he wri t p en d i n g

t h ei r ap p eal t o t hi s Co u rt

. An d o n J u l y 3 0

, 2 0 21

, t h ey fi l ed a m o ti o n req u es t i n g t h at

t h e t ri al co u rt m o di fy

, rev o k e, or reco n si d e r i t s g ran t o f p art i al su m m ary ju d g m en t

,

arg u i n g t h e co u rt h ad t he i nh eren t p o wer to m o di fy it s own j u d gm en ts w i t h i n t h e

s am e t erm

o f co u rt

.

W h i l e t h at m o t i on was pen d i n g , o n Au g u st 19

, 2 02 1

, t h i s Co u rt i ss u ed an o rd er

d i s m i s s i n g t h e d efen d an t s ’ i n terl o cu t o ry ap pl i cat io n

. 3 Sp eci fi cal l y , we n o t ed t h at an

2 S ee OCGA § 9-1 1 -5 6 (h ) (“ An o rd er g ran t i n g s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n an y i s s u e

o r as t o an y p art y s h al l b e s u b ject t o rev i ew b y ap p eal

. ”); s ee Tr ey In m a n & As s o c. v. Ba n k o f Am., N. A.

, 3 06 G a. Ap p

. 4 5 1

, 4 55 (1 ) (7 0 2 SE2 d 7 1 1 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (n o t in g t h at a

g ran t o f p art i al s u m

m ary ju d g m en t i s s u b

ject t o d i rect ap p eal ).

3 S ee L. S co tt Bo rn et a l. v. Br u ce Bo r n et al

. , Cas e N o

. A2 2 I0 0 05

, Ord er (Au g. 1 9 , 2 0 2 1 ).

6o rd er g ran t i n g s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n an y i s s ue i s d i rect l y ap p eal ab l e u n der OCGA

§ 9 -1 1 -5 6 (h ), an d t h at w e “ wi l l g ran t a t i m el y ap pl i cat io n fo r i n t erl o cu t ory rev i ew i f

t h e o rd er co m

p l ai n ed o f i s s u b

j e ct t o d i rect ap p eal an d t h e ap p l i can t s hav e n ot

o t h erwi s e fi led a n o t i ce o f ap p e a l .” 4 Bu t i m p o rt an t l y , we fu rt h er ex p l ai n ed t h at

co m p l ian ce wi t h th e ap p l i cab l e fi l i n g d ead l i n e i s an ab s o l u t e req u i rem en t t o co n fer

ju ri s d i ct i o n , an d we can n o t gran t an u n t i m el y ap p li cat i o n

. 5 An d g i v en t h at t h e ap p eal

o f an y ju d g m en t i n a d i s p o s ses s o ry act i o n m u s t b e fi l ed wi th in s even da ys of t h e d at e

t h e ju dg m en t was en t ered

, t h e d efen d an t s’ ap p l i cat i o n fi led t en d ays aft er ju d g m en t

was u nt i m el y

an d req u i red d is m i s s al b as ed o n l ack o f ju ri s d ict i o n

. 6

4 Th r ea t t v. Ro g er

s , 2 6 9 Ga. Ap p

. 4 0 2

, 4 0 3 (6 0 4 SE2 d 2 6 9 ) (2 0 0 4 ); a cco r d

Bo r n , Cas e No . A2 2I0 00 5 , Ord er (Au g

. 1 9 , 2 0 21 ).

5 S ee Bo rn , Cas e N o

. A2 2 I0 0 0 5

, Ord er (Au g

. 1 9

, 2 0 2 1 ); S t a t e v. W h eel er , 3 1 0

Ga

. 7 2

, 7 6 (3 ) (8 4 9 SE2 d 40 1 ) (2 0 2 0 ) (h o l d i n g th at co m pl i an ce w i t h st at u t o ry d ead li n es fo r f

i l i n g a n o t ice of ap p eal o r an i n t erl o cu t ory ap pl i cat i o n i s an ab s o l u t e

req u i rem en t fo r co n ferri ng j u ri s d i ct i o n u p o n t h e ap p el l at e co u rt s o f th i s St at e); In t h e In t er es t o f B. R

. F.

, 33 8 Ga. Ap p

. 7 6 2

, 7 6 2 (7 9 1 SE2 d 8 5 9 ) (2 0 1 6 ) (h o l d i n g t h at

ap p li cat io n s fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew m

u s t b e t i m el y

t o co n fer ju ri s d i ct i o n).

6 S ee O CGA § 4 4 -7 -5 6 (2 0 0 6 ) (“ An y ju dg m en t b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h al l b e

ap p eal ab l e p u rs uan t t o Ch ap t ers 2

, 3

, 6

, an d 7 o f Ti tl e 5

, p ro v id ed t hat an y s u ch

ap p eal s h al l b e fi l ed wi t h i n s ev en d ay s of t h e d at e su ch j u d gm en t was en t ered

. . . .”);

Ra y M

. W ri g h t

, In c. v. Jo n es , 2 3 9 Ga. Ap p

. 52 1

, 5 2 2 -2 3 (5 2 1 S E 2 d 45 6 ) (1 9 9 9 ) (h o l d i n g t h at an ap p eal i n a d i s p o s s es s o ry cas e m u st b e fi led wi t h i n s ev en d ay s o f an ad v ers e o rd er).

7Im

m ed i at el y aft er t he d i s m i s s al

, th e p lai n ti ffs fi l ed a res p o ns e t o t h e

d efen d an t s ’ m o t i on t o m o di fy

, rev o k e, o r rec o ns i d er it s g ran t o f part i al s u m m ary

ju d g m en t

, arg u i n g t h at o u r d i sm i s s al o f t he d efen d an ts ’ ap p l i cat i o n fo r i n t erl o cu t o ry

rev i ew— at t em

p t i n g t o ap p eal t h e t ri al co urt ’ s g ran t o f p art i al s u m m ary

ju d g m en t

— barred an y fu rt h er rev i ew of t h at is s ue. Nev ert h el es s , o n Oct o b er 4

, 2 0 2 1,

t h e t r i a l c o u rt g ran t ed t h e d efen d an t s t h e rel i ef th ey req u es t ed

, m o di fy i n g i t s p ri o r

o rd er g ran t i n g s u m

m ary ju dg m en t an d t h en en teri n g a n ew o r d e r i d e n ti cal t o t h e

i n i t i al g ran t

, wi t h th e i m

p o rt an t ex cep t i o n t h at it di d no t award t h e p l ai n ti ffs a wri t o f

p o s s es s i o n

. Th e defen d an t s t h en fi l ed a n o t i ce o f ap peal o f t h at ord er. Sh o rt l y

t h ereaft er, t h e pl ai n t i ffs fi led an ap p l i cat i o n f o r i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal

, s eek i n g to

ch al l en g e t h e t ri al co urt ’ s g ran t o f t h e defen dan t s ’ req u es t t o m o di fy th e in i t i al p art i al

s u m m ary ju dg m en t o rd er. 7 W e d i s m i s s e d t h at ap p l i cat i o n as s u perfl u o u s , b ut

7 S ee Br u ce Bo r n et

a l . v. L. S

co t t Bo r n et

a l

. , A2 2 I0 0 6 1 (No v . 9 , 2 0 2 1 ).

8ex p lai n ed t h at as part o f t h ei r res p o n s e t o th e d efen d an t s ’ d irect ap p eal

, t h e p l ai n t i ffs

wo u l d b e ab l e t o rai s e th ei r ch al l en g es to t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er. 8 T h i s ap p eal fo l l o ws

. 9

1

. We fi rs t ad d res s t h e p l ai n t i ffs ’ co n t en t i o n t h at o u r d i s m i s s al o f t h e

d efen d an t s ’ ap p l i cat i o n f o r a n i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal affi rm ed t h e t ri al co urt ’ s i n i t i al

g ran t o f p art i al s u m

m ary ju dg m en t

, an d t h u s , t h e d o c t r i n e o f r es j ud i ca t a b ars b o th

t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s gran t o f t he d efen d an t s ’ m o t i o n to m o di f y t h e i n i t ial s u m

m ary

ju d g m en t o rd er an d t h ei r cu rren t ap p eal . W e ag ree.

It i s w el l es t ab l i sh ed t h at a t ri al co u rt h as i n h eren t p o w er t o rev i s e, co rrect

, o r

m o di fy a ju d gm en t s o l o ng as i t d o es s o v i a a m o t i o n t o m o di fy o r v acat e fi l ed wi t h in

t h e s am e t e r m o f co u rt

. 1 0 Of co u rs e, t h e m o t i o n h ere is es s en t ial l y a m o t i o n t o s et

as i d e, an d “ [g ] en eral l y , we rev i ew a t ri al co u rt ’ s r u l i n g o n a m o t i o n t o set as i d e fo r

8 S ee i d

. (ci t i n g Ga . S

o c’y o f Pl as t i c S

u r g eo ns v. An d

er s o n , 25 7 Ga. 71 0

, 7 1 1 (1 ) (3 6 3 SE2 d 1 4 0 ) (1 9 8 7 ) (Per Cu ri am ), wh i ch h el d t h at “ a ru l i n g t h a t b eco m es

m at eri al t o an en u m erat i o n o f erro r u rg ed b y an ap p el l an t m ay b e co n s i d ered b y t h e

ap p el l at e co urt wi t h o u t t h e n eces s i t y o f a cro s s -ap p eal ”).

9 Th e p l ai n t i ffs h a v e al s o fi l ed a m o t i o n t o d i s m is s t h e d efen d an t s ’ ap p eal

, arg u i n g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s m o d i fi cat i o n o f i ts i n i t i al s u m m ary ju d g m en t o rd er d id

n o t ex ten d t h e t i m e i n wh ich t he d efen d an t s co u l d ap p eal

.

1 0 S ee Tr emb l e v. Tr emb l e , 2 8 8 Ga. 6 6 6, 6 6 8 (1 ) (7 06 SE2 d 4 5 3 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (h o l d i n g t h at a t ri al ju d g e’ s i n h eren t p o w er t o rev i s e, co rrect , o r m o d i fy a ju d g m en t

“ d o es n o t ex t en d b ey o n d t he s am e t erm o f co u rt

, u nl es s a m o t i o n t o m o di fy o r v acat e,

et cet era, was fi l ed wi t h i n t h e s am e t erm o f co urt ” (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed )).

9ab u se of d i s cret i o n

. ” 1 1 Bu t wh en t h e fact s are u n di s p u t ed an d t h e i s s ues p res en t ed o n

ap p eal i n v o l v e q u es t i o n s o f l aw, we “ rev i ew t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g d e n o v o .” 1 2

As n ot ed su

p ra , a g ran t o f p art i al s u m m ary ju d g m en t i s su b

j ect t o di rect ap p eal

u n d er O CGA § 9 -1 1 -5 6 (h ). 1 3 Bu t ag ai n s t th i s b ack dro p , i n Mi tch el l v. Ol i ver , 1 4 t h e

Su p rem e Co urt o f Geo rg i a ex p lai n ed t h at “ [i ] f t he l o s i n g p art y s u ffers di s m i s s al o f h i s

§ 9 -1 1

- 5 6 (h ) ap p eal fo r fai l u re t o fu l fi l l p ro ced u ral req u i rem en t s, t h e l o s i n g p art y

s h o u ld

, in ret u rn fo r h i s p r i v i l e g e o f d i rect ap peal

, s u ffer t h e s am e s an ct i o n o f res

ju d i cat a w h i ch at tach es t o a fi n al ju d g m en t fro m w h i c h a p r o ced u ral l y d efect i v e

ap p eal i s t ak en .” 1 5 Co n s eq u en t l y , t h e Mi tch el l Co u rt co n cl u d ed “ t h a t a l o s in g p art y

o n s um m ary ju dg m en t wh o p u t s t h e m ach i n ery o f i m m ed i at e ap p el l at e rev iew u n d er

OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 6 (h ) in t o m o t i o n , y et co m m it s a pro ced u ral d efau l t fat al t o h i s ap p eal

,

1 1 Da vi s v. Cr es cen t Ho l di n g s & In v., LLC

, 3 3 6 Ga. Ap p. 3 7 8

, 3 7 8 (7 8 5 SE2 d

5 1 ) (2 0 1 6 ).

1 2 Id

.

1 3 S ee s u p r a n o t e 2 & acco m

p an y i n g t ex t

.

1 4 2 5 4 Ga. 1 1 2 (3 2 7 SE2 d 2 16 ) (1 9 8 5 ).

1 5 Id

. at 1 1 4 (1 ); a cco r d Ho u s t o n Ct y. v. Ha r rel l

, 2 8 7 Ga. 1 6 2

, 1 6 3 (6 9 5 SE2 d

2 9 ) (2 0 1 0 ).

10i s fo recl o s ed fro m t h ereaft er res u b m i t t i ng t he m at t er fo r rev i ew o n ap p eal o f t h e fi n al

ju d g m en t .” 1 6

Th at i s es sen ti al l y wh at h ap pen ed h ere. Th e d efen d an ts fi l ed an ap pl i cat i o n fo r

i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p el lat e rev i ew, b u t

— as we ex pl i ci t l y n o t e d i n th e o rd er d is m i s s i n g

t h at ap p li cat i on

— t h ey h ad a ri gh t t o a d irect ap p eal u n d er O CGA § 9 -1 1 -5 6 (h ), an d

we reg u l arl y g ran t a t i m el y ap p l i cat i o n fo r in t erl o cu t o r y r ev i ew i f t h e o rd er

co m p l ai n ed o f i s s ub

ject t o d i rect ap p eal

. 1 7 Bu t t h e d e f en d an t s ’ ap p l i cat i o n was

u n t i m el y

— ju s t as a d i rect ap peal wo u l d h av e b een at t h at p o i n t

— an d

, t h erefo re, we

d i s m i s s ed i t fo r l ack o f ju ri s d ict i o n

. 1 8 Gi ven t h es e ci rcu m s t an ces , ju s t as i n M i t ch el l

,

t h e d efen d an t s p u t t h e m ach i n ery o f ap p el lat e rev i ew i n to m o ti o n u n d er OCGA § 9

-

1 1 -5 6 (h ) an d co m

m i t t ed a p ro ced ural defau l t

. Th u s , u n d er Mi t ch el l

, t h e d efen d an t s

are fo r e c l o sed fro m res u b m i t t i ng t h e p art i al g ran t o f su m m ary ju d g m en t fo r rev i ew

o n ap p eal

. 1 9

1 6 Mi t ch el l , 2 54 Ga. at 1 1 4 (1 ); acco r d Ha r rel l

, 2 8 7 Ga. at 1 6 3

.

1 7 S ee s u p r a n o t e 4

.

1 8 S ee s u p r a n o t e 6 & acco m

p an y i n g t ex t

.

1 9 S ee Ha rr el l , 2 8 7 Ga. at 1 6 3 (h ol d i n g t h at p l ai n t i ff, wh o se fi rs t ap p eal fro m

g ran t of s u m

m ary ju d g m en t i n fav o r o f d efen d an t was d i sm i s sed b ecau s e t h e n o t i ce

o f ap p eal was n o t fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s aft er th e en t ry of an ap p eal ab l e ju d g m en t

, was

11N one the l es s , t h e d efen d an t s conte n d tha t be c a use the y inc o r

r e c tly c ha r a c te r iz e d

t h ei r at t em

p t t o ap p eal as an i n t erl o cu t ory ap p eal rat h er t h an a d irect ap p eal

, o u r

d i s m i s s al d i d n o t b ar t h e t ri al co u rt fro m m od i fy i n g i ts i n i t i al g ran t o f p art i al s u m m ary

ju d g m en t

. Sp eci fi cal l y , ci ti n g Ca n o es i d e Pr o p er ti es

, In c. v. Li vs ey , 2 0 t h ey as s ert t h at

“ [a] d efect i v e at t em

p t t o seek i n t erl o cu t o ry rev i ew p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 5-6 -3 4 (b )

d o es n o t h av e t h e effect of m ak i n g t h e ju d g m en t ap peal ed fro m re s j u d i c at a o f t h e

i s su e.” 2 1 Bu t i n s t ark co n t ras t to Ca n o es i d e , wh i ch i n v o l v ed an at t em p t t o ap p eal fro m

a den i a l of s u m

m ary ju d g m en t

, 2 2 t h e d i s m i s sal o f t he d efen dan t s ’ pri o r ap p eal i s n ot

an ex am p l e o f a defect i v e at tem

p t t o s eek i n t erl o cu t ory rev i ew u n d er OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4

p ro ced ural ly b a r r e d fro m res u b m it t in g th e m at t er fo r rev i ew on a s eco n d ap p eal );

Mi t ch el l

, 2 5 4 Ga. at 1 1 4 (1 ) (h ol d i n g t h at ap p el l an t

, h av i ng s u ffered di s m i s s al o f h i s

ap p eal fo r fai l u re t o fi l e a n ot i ce o f ap p eal wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f en t ry of ord er g ran t i n g

p art i al s u m

m ary ju d g m en t, was b arred b y res ju d i ca t a fro m t h ereaft er res u b m i t t i n g

m at t er fo r rev i ew aft er fi n al ju d g m en t ); s ee a l s o Ma s s ey v. Ma s s ey , 2 9 4 Ga. 1 6 3

, 1 6 4

- 6 5 (2 ) (7 5 1 SE2 d 3 3 0 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (co n cl u d in g t hat h u s b an d

, wh o h ad ri g h t t o s eek

i m m ed i at e ap p el l at e r ev i ew o f co nt em pt o rd er b u t m ad e fat al p ro ced u ral erro r o f

fai l i n g t o al s o f

i l e d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat i o n as req u i red

, p u t t h e m ach i n ery o f

i m m ed i at e ap p el l at e rev i e w i n t o m o t i o n , su ch th at he was fo recl o s ed fro m

res u b m i t t i n g t h e m at t er fo r rev i ew o n ap p eal o f o t h er m at ters ).

2 0 2 7 7 Ga. 4 2 5 (5 8 9 SE2 d 1 16 ) (2 0 0 3 ).

2 1 Id

. at 42 7 (1 ) (q u o ti n g Mi t ch el l , 2 54 Ga. at 1 1 4 (1 )).

2 2 S ee i d

. at 4 2 5 (“ Th i s ap p eal i s fro m an ord er d en y in g s u m m ary ju d g m en t to

t h e d efen d an t s . . . .”).

12(b ). As s t at ed i n o ur o rd er d is m i s s i n g t h ei r ap pl i cat io n , t h e d efen d an t s h ad a ri g h t to

d i r ect ap p eal

, a n d d es p i t e m i s ch aract eri zi n g i t as i n terl o cu t o ry , t h ey cl earl y s o u g ht

i m m ed i at e rev i ew o f a s um m ary ju d g m en t ag ai n s t th em

. In th ei r ap p li cat i o n , an d as

n o t e d i n t h ei r m o t io n to s t ay p ro ceed i n gs fi led wi t h t h e t ri al co u rt (wh i l e t h ei r

ap p li cat io n was p en d i n g ), t he d efen d an t s s o u g h t t o p l ace t h e ap p el l at e m ach i n ery in

m o ti o n t o i mmed i a t el

y ch al l en g e t h e g ran t o f t he wri t o f p o s s es s i o n s o t h at t h ey wo u ld

n o t h av e t o v acat e t h e p rem i s es

. Fo r t h em t o n o w cl ai m t h at t h ei r u n ti m el y ch al l en g e

was a m ere d efect i v e at t em p t at i n t e rl o cu t o ry rev iew b ecau se t h ey m i s t ak en l y

ch aract eri z e d i t as s u ch el ev at es fo rm o v er s u b s tan ce an d i g n o res t h e fact t h at

“ p l ead i ng s , m ot i o n s , a n d o rd ers are co n s tru ed acco rd in g t o t h ei r s u b s t an ce an d

fu n ct i o n an d no t m erel y b y n o m en cl at u re.” 2 3 In d eed

, fo l l o wi n g t h e d efen dan t s ’ l o g i c,

i f t h ey had t i m el y fi l ed th ei r ap p l i cat i o n , w h i ch we wo u l d h a v e gran t ed as a d i rect

ap p eal

, a l at er di s m is s al becau s e t h ey fai l ed

, fo r i n st an ce, t o t im el y fi l e t h ei r ap p el l at e

b ri ef wo u l d n ev ert hel es s h av e n o r es j u d i ca t a effect si m p l y b e c au s e t h ey

2 3 F o r e s t Ci t y G un Cl u b v. Ch a t h a m Ct y. , 2 8 0 Ga. A p p

. 21 9

, 2 2 0 (6 3 3 SE2 d

6 2 3 ) (2 0 0 6 ).

13ch aract eri zed t hei r ap p eal as in terl o cu t o ry in n at ure. 2 4 W e d o n o t ag ree t h at Ca n o es i d e

co u nt en an ces s u ch a res ul t

.

Co n seq u en t l y , t h i s Co urt ’ s d i s m i s s al o f t h e d efen d an t s ’ at t em p t t o p l ace t h e

m ach i n ery o f i m

m ed i at e ap p el l at e rev iew in m o ti o n as t o t he g ran t o f p art i al s u m m ary

ju d g m en t affi rm ed th at ju d g m en t

, an d t h e tri al co u rt was wi th o u t au t h o ri t y t o m o d i fy

o r set as i d e t h at ju d g m en t w h ich was r es j u d i ca t a bet ween th e p art i es

. 2 5 Acco rd i n g l y ,

we rev ers e t he t ri al co u rt ’ s g ran t o f t h e d efen d an ts ’ m o t i o n t o m o d i fy

, rev o k e, o r

2 4 Cf

. Fer d i n a n d v Ci t

y o f Ea s t Po i nt

, 3 0 1 Ga. Ap p

. 3 3 3

, 3 3 6 -3 7 (1 ) (6 8 7 SE2 d

6 1 7 ) (2 0 09 ) (h o l di ng th at ap p el l an t w h o f i l ed d i rect ap p eal o f g ran t of s u m m ary ju d g m en t ag ai n st hi m bu t h ad ap p eal d i s m i s s ed fo r fai l u re t o fi l e a bri ef was fo recl o s ed fro m

s eek in g l at er rev i ew o f t h i s i s s u e).

2 5 S ee Ha r r el l

, 2 87 Ga. at 1 6 4 (“ A t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g ci rcu m ven t i n g t h e

ap p el l at e co u rt ’ s d i s m i s sal o f a d i rect ap p eal can n o t b e p erm i t t ed ; u p o n ret u rn o f t h e

rem i t t i t ur t o t h e t ri al co u rt aft er th e fi rs t d i rect ap p eal

, t he o n l y act i o n w h i ch t h at co u rt
h ad au th o ri t y or p ower t o t ak e was t o m ak e th e j u d gm en t o f t h e Co u rt of Ap p eal s t h e ju d g m en t o f t h e t ri al co u rt .” (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed )); W i ll i a ms v. S t a te

, 3 3 5 G a. Ap p. 4 6 8

, 4 6 8-7 0 (1 ) (7 8 1 SE2 d 7 9 1 ) (2 0 1 6 ) (h o ld i n g t h at t h i s Co u rt ’ s di s m i s s al o f

ap p el l an t ’ s at t em

p t t o ap peal th e d en i al of h is m ot i o n t o s u p p res s effect i vel y affi rm ed

t h e t ri al co urt ’ s den i al an d b ecam e t he l aw o f t h e cas e b e t w e e n t h e p art ies ;

acco rd i n g l y , t h e t ri al co u rt l ack ed t h e au t h o ri t y to ci rcu m ven t o u r p ri o r d is m i s s al by

reen t eri n g an i d en ti cal o rd er). Cf

. Ca n o es i d

e , 2 7 7 Ga. at 5 2 6 -2 7 (1 ) (h o ld i n g t h at
b ecau s e ap p el l an t ’ s d efect i v e at t em p t t o s eek i n t erl o cu t ory rev i ew u n d er O CGA § 5

- 6 -3 4 (b ) of t h e den i a l o f a m o t i o n fo r s um m ary ju d g m en t d i d n o t h av e t h e effect o f

m ak i n g t he ju d g m en t ap peal ed fro m r es j u d i ca t a , t ri al co u rt h ad au t h o ri t y t o v acat e i t s earl i er d en i al an d rei s s u e an i d en t i cal o rd er fo r t h e p u rp os e o f p erm i tt i ng ap p el l an t

an o th er ap p eal ).

14reco n s i d er i t s i n i t ial g ran t o f part i al s u m m ary ju d g m en t. Up o n rem an d

, w e d i rect t h e

t ri al co u rt t o rei n s tat e t h e p rev i o u s o rd er, i n cl u d i n g t h e gran t o f t h e w ri t o f p o s s es s i o n.

2

. Gi v en o u r h ol d i n g i n Di v i si o n 1

, s u p r a , t h e p l ai n t i ffs ’ m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e

d efen d an t s ’ ap p eal i s d en i ed as m oo t

.

Ju d g men t va ca t ed a n d ca s e r ema n ded wi th di r ect i o n

. Mer ci er a n d Ma r kl e, JJ.,

co n cu r

.

15