SECOND DI VI SI ON

M I LLER, P. J.

, HODGES and PI PKI N, 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

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S

C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN

TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

June 29, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A0 51 3 . IN RE ESTATE OF M ARY ELESE REECE.

H O D G E S , J u d g e.

Th i s cas e ari s es fro m t h e p ro b at e o f t he wi l l o f M ary E l es e Reece. Aft er Reece

d i ed

, her wi l l was ad m i t t ed t o p ro b at e i n s o l em n fo rm an d

, s u b s eq u en t l y

, a d i s p u t e

a r o s e i n wh i ch s o m e o f t h e b en efi ci ari es m o v ed t o rem o v e t h e ex ecu t o r o f Reece’s

es t at e (t h e “ Es t at e”). Al th ou g h t h e p ro b at e co urt d i d no t rem o v e t h e ex ecu t o r o f t h e

Es t at e, i t al s o d i d n ot au t h o ri ze s o m e o f t h e at t orn ey fees rel at ed t o t h i s di s p u t e t o b e

p ai d b y th e Es t at e, an d t h e Es t a t e a p p eal s

. Fo r t h e reas o n s t h at fo l l o w, we fi n d t h at

we d o n o t h av e ju ri s di ct i o n t o h ear t h i s ap p eal , an d t h u s we d i s m is s t he cas e.

Ou r l a w i s c l ear t h at “ [t ] h i s Co u rt h as a d u t y t o rai s e th e q ues t i o n o f i t s

ju ri s d i ct i o n i n al l cas es i n wh i ch t h ere m ay b e an y d ou b t reg ard i n g t h e ex i st en ce o f

s u ch j u ri s d i ct i on .” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) B a n d y v. El mo

, 2 8 0 Ga. 2 2 1(6 2 6 SE2 d 5 0 5) (2 0 0 6 ). H ere, t h e p ro b at e co u rt en t ered an o rd er t o p ro b at e t h i s wi l l

i n s o lem n fo rm

. No p art y h as ev er s ou g h t t o co n t es t or ap pe a l t h i s o rd er.

Su b s eq u en t l y

, a wh o l l y u n r e l a t ed d i s p ut e aro s e ov er wh et h er t h e ex ecu t o r o f t h e

Es t at e s h ou l d b e rem ov ed

, wh i ch res u l t ed i n t h e Es tat e fi l i n g an u n s u cces s fu l m o t i o n

fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t arg u in g ag ai n s t rem ov al

. Ul t i m at el y

, th e p ro b at e co urt d i d n ot

rem o v e t h e ex ecu t o r, b ut ex p res s ed co n cern ov er t h e fees pai d to t h e Es t at e’ s at t o rn ey

an d o rd ered t h e Es t at e t o be prep ared t o s eek ap pro v al o f t h o se fees

. Th e Es t at e

m o ved t o h av e t h e fees ap p ro v ed

, an d t h e pro b at e co u rt ap p ro v ed al l fees ex cep t fo r

t h o s e rel at ed t o t h e u ns u cces s fu l m o ti o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t. It i s fro m th i s o rd er

wh i ch t h e Es t at e s eek s t o ap p eal

. 1

It is wo rt h n o t i n g t h at t h e Es t at e ci t es n o b as i s fo r t h is Co u rt ’ s ju ri sd i ct i o n i n

i t s b ri ef. In d eed

, i t ad m i t s t h at i t i n i t i al l y b el i ev ed t h i s t o b e an i n terl o cu t o ry o rd er

fro m wh i ch i t d id n o t s eek a cert i fi ca t e o f i m m ed i at e rev i ew. Th e Es t at e d o es n ot

s p eci fy ho w t h i s o rd er, w h i c h i t i n i t i al l y d eem ed i n t erl o cu t o ry

, t ran s fo rm ed i n t o a

1 In i t s b ri ef, t h e Es t at e p urp o rt s t o ap p eal t h e den ial o f t h e m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary

ju d g m en t

. Th i s en u m erat i on i s i d en t i fi ed b u t nev er m en t i o ned ag ai n i n t h e bri ef, an d

t h u s it i s ab an d on ed

. Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 2 5 (c) (2 ) (“ An y en u m erat io n o f erro r t h at

i s n ot s u p p o rt ed in t h e bri ef b y ci t at i o n o f a u t h o ri t y o r arg u m en t m ay b e d eem ed

ab an do n ed .”).

2d i rect l y ap p eal ab l e o rd er s ev eral m o n t h s l at er, ex cep t t o st at e t h at “ i t [i s ] ap p aren t t h at

t h e cas e co u l d n o t m ov e fo rward wi t h o u t act i o n o n t h e at t o rn ey fee i s s u e.”

“ [T] h e G eo rg ia Co d e l i m i t s o u r ju ri s d ict i o n t o co n s i d er d i rect ap p eal s to

s p eci fi c cat eg o ri es o f ju d g m en t s s et fo rt h i n s u b s ect i o n s (1 ) t h ro u g h (1 2 ) O CGA § 5

-

6 -3 4 (a).” S

et t en d own Pu b l i c Ut i l i t

y, LLC v. W

a t er s ca p e Ut i l i t y, LLC

, 3 2 4 Ga. Ap p.

6 5 2

, 6 5 3 (7 5 1 SE2 d 4 6 3 ) (2 0 13 ). Su b s ect io n (a) (1 ) o f t h e s t at u te p ro v i d es t h at fi n al

ju d g m en t s are d i rect ly ap p eal ab l e, wh i ch are d efi n ed as ju d g m en t s wh ere “ t h e cas e

i s n o lo n g er p en d i n g i n t h e co u rt b el o w,” ex cep t fo r s p eci fi ed t y p es of cas es s u b

ject

t o d i scret i o n a r y a p p eal

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (a) (1 ). Th e rem ai n d er o f s u b s ect i o n (a)

i d en t i fi es p art i cu l ar t y

p es o f o rd ers wh i ch are al so d i rect l y ap peal ab l e, n on e o f wh i ch

co n cern di s p o si t i on o f a req u es t fo r at t o rn ey fees i n a p ro b at e m at ter.

“ Th e po l i cy of th e Ap pel l a t e P r act i ce Act i s ag ai n s t m u l ti p l e ap p eal s an d

p i ecem eal l i t i g at i o n .” (Cita tion om itted .) Ma ys v. R a n ci n e-Ki n ch en

, 29 1 Ga. 2 8 3 (7 2 9

SE2 d 3 2 1 ) (2 0 12 ). Acco rd i n g l y

, “ [a] l l o t h er ju d g m en t s o f a t ri al co u rt [n o t i d en t i fi ed

i n s u b s e c t i o n (a)] are co n si d ered i n t erl o cu t o ry an d are t h erefo re su b j ect t o t h e

i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal pro ced u re s et fo rt h in OCGA § 5-6 -3 4 (b ).” S et t en d o wn

, 3 2 4 Ga.

Ap p

. at 6 5 3

. Ou r l aw i s cl ear t h at “ [p ] art i es are req ui red t o co m p l y wi t h t h e

p ro v is i o n s o f OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b ) i n o rd er to o b t ai n rev iew o f n o n-fi n al

, i n t erl o cu t o ry

3ju d g m en t s .” Ba n d y

, 2 8 0 Ga. at 2 2 1

. “ As w e h av e ex p lai n ed

, t h e i n t erl o cu to ry ap p eal

s t at u te i s n o t a ru n -o f-t h e-m i l l p ro c e d u r a l p r o v i si o n

. It i s a j u ri sd i ct i o n a l l aw by

wh i ch t h e Gen eral A s s em bl y h as l i m i t ed t h e au t h o ri t y o f Geo rg i a’ s ap p el lat e co u rt s

t o h e a r cert ai n cas es .” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ; em ph as i s i n o ri g i n al .)

Ei d s o n v. Cr o u t ch , 3 37 Ga. Ap p . 5 4 2 , 5 4 3 (7 8 8 SE2 d 1 2 9 ) (2 0 16 ).

Here, th e o rd er fro m wh i ch t h e Es t at e at t em p t s t o ap p eal

– an o rd er res o l v i n g

a m o t io n t o ap p ro v e at t o rn ey fees i n a p ro b at e m at ter

– i s n o t a d i r e c t l y ap p eal ab l e

o rd er. It i s n o t a fi n al o rd er p u r s u a n t t o OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (a) (1 ) becau s e t h e

ad m i n is t rat i o n o f t h e E s tat e rem ai n s pen di ng i n t h e p ro b at e co urt fo ll o wi n g i s s u an ce

o f t h i s d i s c r e t e o rd er. 2 See Ba nd y

, 2 8 0 G a. at 2 2 2 (“ T h u s

, aft er t h e s u p eri o r co u rt

res o l ved t h e wi l l co n st ru ct i on i s s u e, i t ret urn ed t h e cas e t o t h e p ro b at e co u rt , wh ere

t h e ad m in i s t rat i o n o f t h e es t at e rem ai n s p en d i ng

. It fo l l o ws t h at th e s u p eri o r co urt ’ s

o rd er was n o t a fi n al j u d gm en t fro m wh i ch ap p el l an t was en t i t l ed t o t ak e a d i rect

ap p eal .”). M o reo v er, i t i s n ot o ne o f t h e cat eg o ri es o f ord ers s p eci fi ed i n OCGA § 5

-

6 -3 4 (a) (2 )

- (1 2 ). Co n s eq u en t ly

, t h e Es t at e was req u i red t o fo l l o w t h e i n t erl o cu t o ry

p ro ced ures o f OCGA § 5-6 -3 4 (b ) t o o b t a i n rev i ew o f t h i s ord er, wh i ch i t

2 Th e Es t at e co nced es as m u ch du e t o it s in d i cat i o n th at th e d i s p ut e o v er t h es e

fees i s co m

p l i cat i ng ad m i ni s trat i o n o f t h e Es t at e.

4u n d i s p u t ed l y di d n o t d o

. No t o n ly i s th i s h o l d i n g co n s i s t en t wi t h t h e st at u t o ry

l an g u ag e wh i ch l im i t s o u r ju ri s d i ct i o n

, i t i s i n keep i n g wi t h t h e p u rp os es o f t h e

Ap p el l at e Pract i ce A ct b y prev en t i n g a m u l ti t u d e o f a p p e a l s each t i m e t h e p ro b at e

co u rt i s s u es a ru l i n g w h ich o n e o r m o re o f t h e i n t er e s t ed p art i es d o es n o t li k e. Th i s

Co u rt d o es n o t h av e ju ri s d i ct i o n t o rev i ew t he i nt erl o cu t o ry o rd er at i s su e i n t h i s cas e,

an d acco rd i n g l y i t m

u s t b e d is m i s s ed . See Ba n dy , 2 8 0 Ga. at 2 2 2

.

Ap p ea l d i s mi s s ed . Mi l l er

, P. J., a n d

Pi p ki n, J., co n cu r

.

5