THI RD DI VI SI ON

BA RNES, P. J.

, BOGGS and BRA NCH, 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.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s /

M ar ch 27, 2015



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 4 A1 69 5

. SYNOVUS BANK v

. PEACHTREE F A C TORY

CENTER, INC.

B R A N C H , J u d g e.

S y n o v us Ban k ap p eal s t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er d en y i n g i t s m ot i o n f o r

cert ifi cat i o n o f fi n al ju d g m en t

. W e co n cl u d e t hat t he o rd er i s n o t ap p eal ab l e an d t h at

we can n ot i n t erv en e an d ad d res s t h e m eri t s o f th i s cas e. Th e ap p eal i s t h erefo re

d i s m i s s ed

.

In Au g u st 2 0 1 1

, Sy n o v u s i s s u ed a co m m erci al p ro m is s o ry n o t e t o P e a c h t ree

Fact o ry Cen t er, In c. J am es M o t t o l a an d Th eo Man n bo t h g u aran t eed p ay m en t o f t h e

n o t e. W h en t h e d efen d an t s refu s ed t o p ay t h e am o u n ts d u e u n d er t h e n o t e, Sy n o vu s

fi led s u i t fo r th e u np ai d b al an ce, i n t eres t

, an d at t o rn ey fees

. Th e defen d an t s an s wered

an d fi l ed a co u n t ercl ai m

, as s ert i n g t hat Sy n o v u s had i n d u ced t h em to en t er i n t o t h et ran s act io n i n o rd er t o al l o w t h e b an k t o refi n an ce th e d eb t o f Fo u rt h Qu art er XVII,

L LC

. D e fen d an t s cl ai m ed t h at t h ey were n o t t o h av e an y l i ab i l i t y u n der t h e n o te o r

t h e g u aran t i es aft er t h e refi nan ci n g o ccu rred

, b u t t he refi n an ci n g ap p aren t l y n ev er

h ap pen ed . Th e d efen d an t s al so fi l ed a t h i rd -p art y co m pl ai n t ag ai n st Fo u rt h Qu art er

an d St a n l e y Th o m as

, as s ert i n g es s en ti al l y t h e s am e cl ai m s i n cl u ded i n t h ei r

co u nt ercl ai m

.

Sy n o v u s fi l ed a m ot io n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t as t o i t s co m p l a i n t a n d t h e

d efen d an t s ’ co u nt ercl ai m s

. Th e t ri al co urt gran t ed t h e m ot i o n

, no t i n g t h at th e t h i rd

p art y co m p l ai n t rem ai n ed p en d i n g

. Sy n o v u s s o u g h t t o h av e lan g u ag e i n cl ud ed i n t h e

o rd er t h at wo u l d ren d er t h e ju d g m en t fi n al

, b u t t he d efen d an t s o b ject ed

, an d t h e t ri al

co u rt d i d n o t i n cl ud e i t

. Sy n o v u s t h e n f i l ed a m ot i o n fo r cert i fi cat i o n o f fi n al

ju d g m en t

, s eek i n g t o h av e th e co u rt cert i fy t h e ord er as fi nal u n d er OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 4

(b ). T h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e m o t i o n fo r cert i fi cat i o n b u t g r a n t ed Sy n o v u s ’ s

cert ifi cat e o f i m

m ed i at e rev i ew.

W e g ran t ed Sy n o v u s ’ s ap p l i cat i o n fo r i n t erl o cu to ry ap p eal t o co n s i d er wh et h er

a t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n n o t t o cert i fy an ord er as fi nal un d er OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 4 (b ) i s

a p p e a l ab l e, an d

, i f s o

, t h e ap pl i cab l e st an d ard of rev i ew. Sy n o v u s h as as s ert ed a

co m p el l i n g arg u m en t fo r a fi n al ju d g m en t be c a u s e i t p rev ai l ed o n al l cl ai m s

2ap p li cab l e t o i t i n t h e t ri al co u rt b u t can n o t co l l ect fro m t h e d efen d an t s u n ti l t h e t h i rd

p art y co m p l ai n t is res o l v ed

. See MARTA v. Fed er i ck

, 1 8 7 Ga. Ap p

. 6 9 6

, 6 9 8 (1 ) (3 7 1

S E2 d 2 0 4) (1 9 8 8 ) (ju dg m en t en t ered i n m u l t i p l e part y an d / o r m

u l t i p l e cl ai m s ca s e

p ri o r to d i s p o s i t i o n o f en t ire cas e i s n ot en fo rceab l e u n l es s req ui rem en t s o f Ru l e 5 4

(b ) are m et ). Bu t t h e i n i t i al q u es t i o n i s wh et h er th e t ri al co u rt ’ s deci s i o n n ot t o cert i fy

t h e ju dg m en t as fi n al u n d er OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 4 (b ) i s rev i ewab le o n ap p eal

.

Pu rs uan t t o OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 4 (b ),

[w] h en m o re t han o n e cl ai m fo r rel i ef i s pres en t ed i n an act i on

, wh et h er

a s a cl ai m

, co u nt ercl ai m

, cro s s-cl ai m

, o r th i rd -p art y cl ai m

, o r wh e n

m u l t i p l e p art ies are i nv o l v ed

, t h e co u rt m ay d i rect t h e en t ry of a fi nal

ju d g m en t as t o o ne o r m o re b u t fewer t h an al l o f t h e cl ai m s or p art i es

o n l y u p o n an ex pres s d et erm i n at i on t hat t h ere i s n o ju s t reas o n fo r d el ay

an d up o n an ex p res s di rect i o n fo r th e en t ry of ju dg m en t

. In t he ab sen ce

o f s u ch det erm in at i o n an d d i rect i o n

, an y o rd er o r ot h er fo rm o f d eci s i o n

,

h o wev er d es i g n at ed

, wh i ch ad ju d i cat es fewer th an al l th e cl ai m s o r th e

ri gh ts an d l i ab il i t i es of fewer t h an al l t h e p art ies s h al l n o t term i n at e th e

act i o n as to an y o f t h e cl ai m s o r p art i es , an d t h e o rd er o r o t her fo rm o f

d eci si o n i s s u b

ject t o rev i s i o n at an y t i m e b efo re t h e en t ry o f ju d g m en t

ad ju di cat i n g al l t h e cl ai m s an d t h e ri g h t s an d l i ab i l i t i es o f al l th e p art i es

.

W e no t e t h at

, wh i l e t he s t at u t e d i rect s t h e ju d g e wh en h e o r s h e h as d eci d ed t o en t er

a fi n al ju d g m en t

, th e s t at u t e i s s i l en t i f t he ju d g e h as d eci d ed n o t to d o so

. W e al s o

3n o t e t h at t h ere d o es n o t ap p ear t o b e an y G eo rg i a au t h ori t y s peci fi cal l y d i s cu s s i n g

wh et h er a t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n n o t to d i rect en t ry o f a fi n al ju dg m en t u n d er t h i s ru l e

i s ap p eal ab l e an d, i f s o, t he ap p l i cab l e s t an d ard o f rev i ew. 1

Th e Geo rg i a ru l e i s es s en t i al l y t h e s am e as Ru le 54 (b ) o f t h e Fed eral Ru l es o f

Ci v il Pro ced u re, wh i ch s t at es t h at

[w] h en an act i on p res en t s m o re t h an o ne cl ai m fo r rel i ef--wh et h er as a

cl ai m

, co u n tercl ai m

, cro s s cl ai m

, o r t h ird -p art y cl ai m --o r wh en m u l t i pl e

p art i es are i n v o lv ed

, th e co u rt m ay d i rect en try o f a fi n al ju d g m en t as t o

o n e o r m o re, b ut fewer t h an al l

, cl ai m s o r p art i es o nl y i f t h e co u rt

ex p res s l y d et erm i n e s t h at t h ere i s n o ju s t reas o n fo r d el ay

. Ot h erwi s e,

an y o rd er o r o t h er d eci si o n

, h o wev er d es ig n at ed

, th at ad ju d i cat es fewer

t h an al l t h e cl ai m s o r t h e ri g h t s an d l i ab i l it i es o f fewer t han al l th e

p art i es d o es n o t en d t h e act i o n as t o an y o f t h e cl ai m s o r p art i es an d m ay

b e rev i s ed at an y t i m e befo re t h e en t ry o f a ju d g m en t ad ju d i cat i ng al l th e

cl ai m s an d al l t h e p art i es ’ ri gh t s an d l iab i l i t i es

.

Th e Un i ted St at es Su p rem e Co u rt h as d i rect ed t hat t h e d i st ri ct co u rt s b e g i v en

s u b s t an t i al d eferen ce i n d eci d i n g wh et h er t o m ak e an ex p res s d et erm i n at i o n t h at t h ere

i s “ n o j u s t r e a s o n fo r d el ay ” u n d er Fed

. R. Ci v

. P. 5 4 (b ) b ecau s e th o s e co u rt s are

1 Th e s t an d ard o f rev i ew ap p l i cab le t o th e i ss u an ce o f a fi n al ord er u n d er Ru l e

5 4 (b ) i s m en t i o ned i n Th o m ps o n v. Ci t

y of Fi tz g er a l d

, 24 8 Ga. A p p

. 7 2 5

, 7 2 9 (3 )

(5 4 8 SE2 d 3 6 8) (2 0 0 1 ), wh en t h e co urt s t at es t h at “ t h e t ri al co urt d i d no t ab u s e i t s

d i s cret i o n i n i s s u i n g a fi n al o rd er p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 4 (b ).”

4m o st l i k el y t o be fam i l i ar wi t h t h e cas e an d an y ju s t i fi ab l e reas o n s fo r d el ay

. Cu r t is s

W r ig h t Co rp

. v

. G e n

. El ec. Co

. , 4 4 6 U. S. 1

, 1 0 (II) (1 0 0 SCt 14 6 0

, 6 4 LE2 d 1 )

(1 9 8 0).

Al t h ou g h Geo rg i a ap p el l at e co u rt s do n o t ap p e a r to hav e ad d res s ed wh et h er t h e

d en ial o f a m o ti o n fo r cert i fi cat i o n u n d er O CGA § 9 -1 1 -5 4 (b ) is ap peal ab l e, fed eral

co u rt s h av e ad dres s ed t h i s i ss u e u n d er Fed

. R. Ci v

. P. 5 4 (b ) an d det erm i n ed t h at t h e

d en ial o f 5 4 (b ) cert i fi cat i o n i s n o t g en eral l y ap p eal ab l e. 2 See Mi dd l eb y Co r p

. v.

Hu s sma n n Co r

p

. , 96 2 F2 d 6 1 4

, 6 1 6 (7 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 2 ) ( d i s t r i c t c o u rt can n o t b e

co m p el l ed t o en ter a p art i al fi n al ju d g m en t un d er Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 5 4 (b ) an d ap p el l at e

co u rt h as n o ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er d i s t ri ct co u rt ’ s refu s al t o en t er s uch a d eci s io n ); McCa l l

v. Deed s

, 8 4 9 F2 d 1 2 5 9 (9 t h Ci r. 1 9 8 8 ) (d i sm i s s i n g ap p eal fro m d en i al o f Ru l e 5 4 (b )

cert ifi cat i o n as n o t ap p eal ab l e); Ma ku c v. Amer i ca n Ho n d a M o t o r Co

. , 69 2 F2 d 1 7 2,

1 7 4 (1 s t Ci r. 1 9 82 ) (“ Si n ce we k n o w o f n o cl ear p reced en t t o t h e co nt rary an d s i nce

we b el iev e t h e gen eral po l i cy [ag ai ns t p i ecem eal rev iew] st ro ng l y su p p o rt s i t

, we h o ld

t h at t h e d e n i a l o f a Ru l e 5 4 (b ) m o t i o n i s n o t g en eral l y ap p eal ab l e.”); S a b er v.

2 “ Be c a u s e G e o rg i a’ s Ci v i l Pract i ce A ct i s m o d el ed o n t h e Fed eral Ru l es o f

Ci v i l P r o c e d u re, d eci s i o n s o f t h e fed eral co u rt s i n t erp ret in g t h e fed eral ru l es are

p ers u as i v e au t h o ri t y .” W

el l s t a r Hea l t h S

ys t ems v. Kemp

, 3 2 4 G a. Ap p

. 6 2 9

, 6 3 8 (2 ),

n .1 9 (7 5 1 SE2 d 4 4 5 ) (2 0 13 ).

5Fi n a nceAmer i ca Cr ed it Co r p

. , 8 4 3 F2 d 6 9 7

, 7 0 2 (II) (A) (3 rd Ci r. 1 98 8 ) (al t h o u g h

co u rt o f ap p eal s m ay rev iew d i s t ri ct co u rt ’ s d eci s i on t o cert i fy an ap p eal fo r ab u s e o f

d i s cret i o n

, “ it ord i n ari l y h as no ju ri s d ict i o n t o rev i ew o n an i n t erl o cu t ory b as i s a

d i s t ri ct co u rt ’ s fai l ure t o cert ify a cas e fo r rev i ew.”). Gi v en t h e al m o st i d en t i c a l

l an g u ag e i n OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 4 (b ) an d Fed

. R. Ci v

. P. 5 4 (b ), we are p ers u ad ed b y t h e

fed eral au t h o ri t y

o n t h i s i s s u e.

In t h i s cas e, t h e t ri al co u rt co n si d ered Sy n o v us ’ s m ot i o n f o r cert i fi cat i o n o f

fi nal ju d g m en t an d d en i ed i t

. W e u n ders t an d Sy n o v u s ’ s d es i re t o h av e an i m m ed i at el y

en fo rceab l e j u dg m e n t

— i t h as n o ab i l i t y t o ex p ed i t e t h e l i t i g at i o n in th e tri al co u rt

an d t h e rem ai n i n g p art i es h av e no i n cen t i v e t o d o s o an d t h ere i s n o ev i d en ce t h at t h e

t ri al co u rt req u i red th e d efen d an t s t o p o st an y s ecu ri ty fo r th e ju d g m en t ag ai n s t t h em

— b u t we co n cl u d e t h at we can n o t rev i ew t h e tri al co u rt ’ s d eci s io n

. Acco rd i n g l y

, t h e

ap p eal i s d is m is s ed

.

A pp ea l d i s mi s sed

. Ba r n es

, P. J., co n cu r s

, a nd Bo g

g s

, J., co n cu r

s f u l l y a n d

s p eci a l l y

.

6A 1 4 A 1 6 9 5

. SYNOVUS BANK v

. PEACHTREE FACTORY

CENTER, INC.

B O G G S , J u d g e, co n cu rri n g fu l l y an d s p eci al l y

.

I ag ree wi t h t h e m ajo ri t y t h at i n t h e ab s en ce o f Geo rg i a p reced en t

, we s h o u ld

b e g u i d ed b y fed eral au t h o ri t y h o l d i n g t hat t here is n o ri g ht o f ap p eal fro m t h e d en i al

o f a m o t io n fi l ed p u r s u an t t o Fed

. R. Ci v

. P. 54 (b ), w hi ch i s n earl y i d en t i cal to

OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 4 (b ). An d I reco g n i ze an d ap p reci at e t h e u n d es i rab i l i t y o f p i ecem eal

ap p eal s

. I wri t e, ho wev er, t o em p h as i ze t h e p o s s i b l e i n eq u i t y i n fo recl o s i n g ap p el l at e

rev i ew, es p eci al ly u n d e r t h e ci rcu m s t an ces o f t h i s cas e. Sy n o v us ’ ju d g m en t h ere i s

h o s t ag e t o t h e cl ai m bet ween t he t hi rd -p art y p l ai n t i ff an d t h e t h i rd -p art y d efen d an t

.

Sy n o v u s h as n o s tan d i n g t o req u es t a res ol u t i o n o f t he cl ai m b et ween th o s e p art i es

,

l eav i ng t h e d o o r o pen t o co ll u s i o n t o d e l a y Sy n o vu s fro m recei v i n g an d s eek i n g

co l l ect i o n of i t s ju d g m en t

. Sy n o v u s ru n s th e ri s k o f l o s i n g pri o ri ty p o s i t i o n o r as s et s

a v a i l a b l e t o s at i s fy i ts ju d g em en t

, wi t h o u t an y reco u rs e. In d eed

, Ru l e 5 4 (b ) “ wa s

o ri g i nal ly en act ed t o av o i d t h e p o ss i b l e i n ju s t i ce t h at m i gh t res u l t i f j u d g m en t o f a

d i s t i n ct l y s ep arat e cl ai m were d el ay ed u n t i l ad ju d i cat i o n o f t h e en t i re cas e.” See Pa g e

v. P r ei s s er

, 5 8 5 F2 d 3 36

, 3 3 9 (I) (B) (8 t h Ci r. 1 9 7 8 ). A ri g h t o f ap p eal i s t h e o n l ym ean s t o co n s i d er w h et h er t h ere h as b een i nju st i ce i n t h e del ay o f a ju d g m en t o n a

d i s t i n ct l y s ep arat e cl ai m v i a t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s d en i al o f cert ifi cat i o n, es p eci al l y h ere

wh ere t h ere is n o ex p l an at i o n fo r t h e co u rt ’ s ru l i n g

. Bu t t h i s ri g h t o f ap p eal can o n l y

b e g ran t ed b y

t h e Gen eral As s em

b l y

.

2