# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 A1 87 7 . HAMMONS et a l . v . GEORGI A TI TLE SOURCE, LLC et a l

.

Th e ap p el l e es s u ed t h e ap p el l an t s fo r m i s ap p ro pri at i on o f co n fi d en t i al an d

p ro p ri et ary i nfo rm at i o n. T h e ap pel l an t s an s wered t h e co m p l ai n t an d fi l ed

co u nt ercl ai m s

. T h e tri al co u rt co nd u ct ed a b en ch t ri al an d en t ered an o rd er t h at

r e s o l v ed t h e cas e ex cep t fo r t h e i s s u e o f at t o rn ey fees un d er O CGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1

. O n

t h at i s s u e, t h e co urt d irect ed t h e ap p el lees t o p res en t an ap p l i cat i o n fo r fees an d co s t s

wi t h i n 1 0 d ay s

, wh i ch t h ey d i d

. Th e ap p el l at e reco rd co n t ai n s n o ru l i ng o n t h e fee

ap p li cat io n

. Th e ap p el l an t s fi l ed a n o t i ce o f ap peal fro m t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s b en ch -t ri al

o rd er, an d t h e ap p eal was d o ck et ed h ere. W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct io n

.

Becau s e t he t ri al co u rt h ad n o t res o lv ed t he i s s u e o f O CGA § 1 3-6 -1 1 at t o rn ey

fees

, t he cas e was p en d i n g b e l o w wh en th e ap p el l an t s fi led t h e n o t i ce o f ap p eal

.

S o t t er v. S t ep h en s

, 2 9 1 Ga. 79

, 8 3 -8 4 (7 2 7 SE2 d 48 4 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (“ [I] f t h e ju d g m en t

res erv es t h e i s s u e o f at t o rn ey fees u n d er OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1, t hen o n e can n o t cl ai m t h at

t h e cas e i s n o l o n ger p en d i n g i n t h e co u rt b el o w as req u i red b y OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (a)

(1 ).”) (p u n ct uat i o n o m it t ed ). Th e ap p el lan t s were req u ired t o fo l l ow t h e i n t erl o cu t o ry

ap p eal p ro ced u res t o ap p eal t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er. See OCGA § 5

- 6-3 4 (b );

Ci t i Fi n a n ci a l S vcs . v. Ho ll a n d , 3 1 0 Ga. Ap p . 4 80 , 4 81 (7 1 3 SE2 d 6 7 8 ) (2 0 1 1 ).

Th e fact t h at th e t ri al co urt g ran t ed t h e ap p el l ees i n ju n ct i ve rel i ef, o rd eri n g t h e

ap p el l an t s t o ret u rn al l p ro p ert y o f t h e ap p el l ees

, d o es n o t al ter t h i s res ul t becau s e t h e

ap p el l an t s do n o t ch al l en g e t he g ran t o f t h at rel i ef. Vo yl es v. Vo yl es

, 30 1 G a. 4 4

, 4 6

-

4 7 (7 9 9 SE2 d 1 6 0 ) (2 0 1 7 ) (ap pl y i n g i s s u e-rai s ed -o n-ap p eal ru l e to fi n d t hat ap p el l an t

s h o u ld hav e fi l ed an ap p li cat i o n fo r d i scret i o n ary rev i ew i n s t ead of a n o t i ce o f d i rect

ap p eal ). See al so Red

f ea r n v. H u n t cl i f f Ho mes As s n

. , 2 7 1 Ga. 7 4 5

, 74 7 (2 ) (5 2 4 SE2 d

February 06, 20194 6 4 ) (1 9 9 9 ) (d et erm i ni ng wh et h er an act i o n i s an eq u it y cas e fo r pu rp o s es o f

ap p el l at e ju ri s d ict i o n “ d ep en d s u p o n t h e i s s u e rai s ed o n ap p eal

, n o t u p o n h o w t h e

cas e i s s t y l ed n o r u po n th e k i n d s o f rel i ef wh i ch m ay b e s o ug h t b y t h e co m p l ai n t ”)

(p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

Th e ap p el l an t s ’ fai l u re t o fo l l o w th e i nt erl o cu to ry ap peal p ro ced u res d ep ri v es

u s o f ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h i s d i rect ap p eal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DI SMI SSED

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 02/06/2019