SECOND DI VI SI ON

M I LLER, P. J.

, A NDREWS, J.

, and SENI OR A PPELLA TE JUDGE B EA SLEY

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 l s .us /r ule s

M ay 16, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A 1 8 A 0 6 7 2

. D E L T A A L I R A Q

, I N C

. v

. A R C T U R U S

INTERNATIONAL, LLC et al

.

B E A S LE Y , Sen i o r Ap p el l at e J u d g e.

Pl ai n t i ff Del t a Al i raq

, In c. (“ Del t a”) ap p eal s th e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er gran t i n g t h e

m o ti o n fi l ed b y defen da nts A r c tu ru s In t ern at i o n al

, LLC (“ Arct u ru s ”) an d Del t a Al p h a

X-Ray

, LLC (“ DAX”) t o s et as id e a d efau l t ju dg m en t prev i o u s l y en t ered ag ai n s t t h e

d efen d an t s

. Th e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed t h e m o t i o n o n t h ree i n d ep en d en t g ro u n d s, each o f

wh i ch Del t a ch al l en g es

. W e co n cl u d e t hat t h e t ri al co urt d i d n o t err wh en i t as i d e t h e

d efau l t ju d g m en t o n gro un d s t h at i t l ack ed p ers o n al ju ri s d i ct io n o ver DAX an d t h at

Del t a fai l ed t o p ro v e d am ag es as t o Arct u ru s

. W e th erefo re affi rm t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

ju d g m en t

.In 2 0 1 5

, Del t a o bt ai n ed a ju d g m en t ag ai n s t DAX an d t wo o t h er p art i es (n ei t h er

o f wh om i s a p art y t o t h i s act i o n ), jo i n t l y an d s ev eral l y

, i n t h e am o u nt o f $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0,

i n a Cal i fo rn ia co u rt

. In J u ne 20 1 6

, Del t a fi l ed t h e i n s t an t co m p l ai n t i n Fu l t o n Co u n t y

ag ai n s t Arct u ru s an d D A X. In i t s co m p l ai nt

, D el t a (i ) s ou g ht t o d o m es t i cat e t h e

Cal i fo rn i a ju dg m en t a g a i ns t DAX an d (i i ) as s ert ed a frau d u l en t co n v ey an ce cl ai m

ag ai n s t b o th d efen d an t s

. In i t s frau d u l en t co n v ey an ce cl a i m

, Del t a al l eg ed t h at

Arct u ru s h ad acq u i red real pro pert y i n Ro s w el l wi t h fu n ds s u p p l i ed b y DAX as p art

o f a s ch em e t o s h el t er DAX’ s as s et s fro m Del t a. A s rel ief, Del t a as k ed t h e t ri al co u rt

,

i n rel ev an t p art

, to en t er th e $ 1 ,0 0 0

, 0 0 0 Cal i fo rn i a ju d g m e n t a g a i n s t DAX as a

ju d g m en t o f t h e Fu l t on Co u n t y t ri al co u rt an d t o g r a n t Del t a a l i en ag ai n s t t h e

R o s w el l p ro p ert y i n t h e am o u n t o f al l s u m s al l eg ed ly t ran s ferred b y DAX. In

Sep t em b er 2 0 1 6

, Del t a m o v ed fo r a d efau l t ju d g m en t o n t h e gro u n d t h at n ei t h er

d efen d an t h ad fi l ed a res p o n s i v e p l ead i n g. Lat er t h at m o n t h

, t h e tri al co u rt g ran t ed

Del t a’ s m o ti o n

, en t ered a $1

, 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ju d g m en t ag ai ns t DAX, an d g ran t ed Del t a a l i en

ag ai n s t Arct uru s ’ s p ro pert y i n Ro s wel l “ t o s ecu re [Del ta] ’ s ju d g m en t l i en .”

2In J an uary 2 0 1 7

, Arct u ru s fi l ed a m o t i o n t o o p en d efau l t u nd er OCGA § 9 -1 1

-

5 5 (b ). 1 Th e tri al co u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n

, an d we s u bs eq uen t l y d en ied A rct u ru s ’ s

ap p li cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal fro m t hat ru l in g

. See Ar ct u ru s In t l

. LLC v. Del ta

Al i r a q , In c. et a l

. , No . A1 7 D0 3 6 2 (Ap r. 1 3 , 2 0 1 7 ).

In M arch 2 0 1 7

, t h e d efen d an t s m ov ed t o s et as i de th e d efau l t ju dg m en t u n d er

OCGA § 9 -1 1 -6 0 (d ) on m u l t i p l e gro u n d s. Th e tri al co u rt g r a n t ed t h e d efen d an t s ’

m o ti o n

, co n cl u di ng t h at : (i ) Del t a h ad as s i g ned t o a t h i rd p ar t y i ts i n teres t i n t h e

Cal i fo rn i a ju d g m en t

, as a res u l t o f w h i ch i t l ack ed s tan d i n g t o b ri n g t h e i n s t an t act i o n;

(i i) Del t a fai led t o p erfect s erv i ce o n DAX, as a res u lt o f wh i ch th e t ri al co urt co u ld

n o t ex erci s e p ers o n al ju ri sd i ct io n o v er D AX i n t h i s act i o n ; an d (i ii ) Del t a fai l e d t o

p ro v e d am ag es i n t he am o u n t o f t h e l i en ag ai ns t Arct u ru s

, w h i c h

, t h e co u rt fo u n d,

co n st i t u t es a n o n am en d ab le defect on t he face of t h e reco rd

. T he t r i a l c o u rt

s u b s eq u en t l y cert i fi ed i t s o rd er fo r i m m ed iat e rev iew, an d we g ran t ed Del t a’ s

ap p li cat io n fo r i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal . See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b ).

1 Al t h ou gh s t y l ed as a “ Mo t i o n t o Set As i d e Defau l t J u d g m en t ,” t h e arg u m en t s

rai s ed i n Arct u ru s ’ s J an u ary 2 01 7 m o ti o n p ert ai ned o n ly t o op en i n g d efau l t u n d er

OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 5 (b ), an d no t t o s et t i n g as i d e a ju d g m en t u n der OCGA § 9 -1 1 -6 0 (d ).

See Pl a n et In s

. Co

. v. Fer r el l

, 2 2 8 Ga. Ap p

. 2 64

, 2 6 6 (4 9 1 SE2 d 4 71 ) (1 9 9 7 )

(“ [P] l e a d i n g s

, m o t i o ns an d o rd ers are t o be co ns t ru ed acco rd i n g to t h ei r su b s t an ce an d

fu n ct i o n an d n o t m erel y

as t o t hei r n o m en cl at u re. . . .”).

3OCGA § 9-1 1-6 0 (d ) au t h o ri zes a t ri al co u rt t o s et as i d e i t s ju d g m en t o n cert ai n

l i m i ted b as es :

(1 ) Lack o f ju ri s di ct i o n o v er t he p ers o n o r t h e s u b ject m at t er;

(2 ) Frau d

, acci d en t

, o r m i s t ak e o r t he act s o f t h e ad v ers e p art y u n m i x ed

wi t h t he n eg l i g en ce o r fau l t o f t h e m o v an t ; o r

(3 ) A n o n am en d ab le d e f

e c t wh i ch ap p ears u p o n t h e face o f t h e reco rd

o r p l ead i n g s

. Un d er t h is parag rap h

, i t is no t s u ffi ci en t t h at t h e co m p l ai n t

o r o t h er p l ead i ng fai l s t o s t at e a cl ai m up o n w h i ch rel i ef can b e g ran t ed

,

b u t t h e p l ead in g s m

u s t affi rm at i v el y

s h o w n o cl ai m

i n fact ex i s t ed

.

“ Defau l t ju d g m en t i s a d ras t i c s an ct io n t h at s h ou l d b e in v o k ed o n l y i n ex t rem e

s i tu at i o n s. W h en ev er po s s i b l e, cas es s h o u l d be d ec i d e d o n t h ei r m eri ts

, fo r d efau l t

ju d g m en t is not fav o red i n law.” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed .) Fea zel l v. Gr eg g

,

2 7 0 Ga. Ap p. 6 5 1, 6 5 3 (1 ) (b ) (6 0 7 SE2 d 2 5 3 ) ( 2 0 0 4 )

. “ W e rev i ew a ru l i n g o n a

m o ti o n to s et as i d e f

o r a b u s e o f d i s cret io n an d affi rm i f t here i s an y ev i d en ce to

s u p p ort i t

. Fact u al d i sp u t es reg ard i n g serv ice are t o b e res o l v ed b y t h e tri al co u rt

, an d

t h e co u rt ’ s fi n d i n g s w i l l b e u p h e l d if t h ere i s a ny evi d en ce t o su p po rt t h em .”

(Ci t at i o n s an d p un ct u a t i o n o m i t t ed ; em p h as i s i n o ri g i n al

. ) Va s il e v. A dd o

, 3 4 1 Ga.

Ap p . 2 3 6 , 2 4 0 (2 ) (8 0 0 SE2 d 1 ) (2 0 17 ). W e rev i ew q ues t i o n s o f l aw d e n o v o . Id

.

41 . Del t a rai s es s ev eral ch al l en g es t o t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s co n cl u s i o n t h at i t l ack ed

p ers o n al ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er DAX d u e t o d efi ci en t s erv i ce of p r o c es s

. Th e t ri al co u rt

ru l ed t h at Del t a’ s p u rp o rt ed s erv i ce o n “ a d efu n ct reg i st ered ag en t [o f D AX] i n No rt h

Caro l i n a,” a “ s t at e u n co nn ect ed t o t h e n ex u s o f th e cl ai m s ” i n t h i s act i o n

, was

i n s u ffi ci en t fo r t he co u rt t o ex erci s e p ers o n al ju ri s d ict i on ov er DAX. W e affi rm t h e

t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g t h at De l t a f a i l ed t o p ro p erl y s erv e DAX, al t h o u gh n o t fo r t h e

ex p li ci t reas o n s tat ed i n t he t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er. 2

In i t s co m p l ai n t , Del ta al l eg ed t h at DAX, a n o n res id en t

, i s s u b ject t o t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s ju ri s d i ct i o n u n d er OCGA § 9 -1 0 -9 1

– Geo rg i a’ s l o n g -arm s t at u t e

– o n

g ro u nd s th at DAX i s a “

jo i n t t o rt feas o r” an d p o s s e s s es an i n t eres t i n real es t at e in

Fu l t o n Co u n t y

. See O CGA § 9 -1 0 -9 1 (2 ), (4 ). U n d e r O CGA § 9-1 0 -9 4

, a p art y

s u b ject t o t h e ju ri s d i ct i o n o f Geo rg i a co u rt s p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 9

- 1 0

- 9 1 “ m ay b e

2 In a fo o t no t e, an d wi t h o u t ci t at i o n t o ei t h er th e reco rd o r l eg al au t h ori t y

, Del t a

b ri efl y ch al l en g es t he tri al co u rt ’ s ju dg m en t t o t h e effect t h at th e co u rt m ay h av e s et

as i d e t h e d efau l t ju d g m en t ag ai n st Arct u ru s o n t h e g ro u n d t hat t he co urt l ack ed

ju ri s d i ct i o n ov er D AX. Pret erm i t t i n g wh et h er t h e t ri al co u rt m ad e s u ch a ru l i n g

, we

d eem Del t a’ s cl ai m o n t h i s i s s u e ab an d o n ed

. See Co u rt o f Ap p ea l s R u l e 2 5 (c) (2 );

Eva ns v. S t at e

, 3 3 0 G a. Ap p

. 24 1

, 2 46 (5 ) (7 6 6 SE2 d 82 1 ) (2 0 1 4 ). Reg ard l es s

, fo r t h e

reas on s d i s cu s sed i nfra i n Di v i s i o n 2

, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t ab u s e i t s d i s cret i o n wh en

i t set as i d e t h e d efau l t ju d g m en t as t o Arct u ru s o n t h e g ro u n d t h at Del t a’ s fai l u re t o

p ro v e dam ag es as to Arct u ru s co n s t i t u tes a n o n a m en d ab l e d efect on t h e face o f t h e

reco rd

.

5s erv ed wi t h a s u m m o n s o u t s i d e t h e st at e in t h e s am e m an n er as s erv i ce i s m ad e wi t h in

t h e s t at e.

. . .” Fo r e i g n l i m i t ed l i ab i l i ty co m p an i es

, su ch as DAX, g en eral l y are

g o v ern ed b y OCGA § 1 4 -1 1-7 0 1 et s eq

. Ho wev er, b ecau s e t h e r eco rd ap p ears to

co n tai n n o i n d icat i o n t h at DAX i s au th o ri zed t o t ran s act b u s i n es s i n Geo rg i a, n o n e

o f t h e s erv i ce p ro v i s i o n s i n OCGA § 1 4-1 1 -7 0 1 et s eq

. ap pl y

. Serv i ce i n th i s cas e t hu s

i s g o v ern ed b y t h e cat ch al l p ro vi s i o n i n OCGA § 9 -1 1 -4 (e) (7 ), u n d er wh i ch s erv i ce

m ay b e m ad e b y d el i veri n g a co p y o f t h e s u m m o n s at t ach ed t o a co p y o f t h e

co m p l ai n t “ t o a n ag en t au t h ori zed b y ap p o i nt m en t or b y l aw to recei v e s erv i ce o f

p ro ces s .”

Del t a s o u g h t t o es t ab li s h s erv i ce u p o n D AX b y s u b m i t t i n g a “ Sh eri ff’ s En t ry

o f Serv i ce” fo rm d at ed J u l y 2 0

, 2 0 1 6

, i d en ti fy i n g th e n am e an d ad d res s o f t h e p art y

t o b e s erv ed as :

Del t a Al p h a X-Ray LLC

Nei g h b o rh o o d Ho m es & Real t y

, In c.

7 3 7 Ch ad wi ck Sh o res Dri v e

Sn ead s Ferry , NC 2 8 4 6 0

Th e fo rm i n cl ud es s ev eral p re-p ri n t ed o p t io n s fo r i d en t i fy i n g t h e m an n er o f s erv i ce,

i n cluding “ P e r s ona l” a

nd “ C or p o rat i o n .” On l y t h e ch eck b o x fo r “ Pers o n al ” i s m ark ed

.

Th e en t ry fo r p ers o nal serv i ce i n cl u d es t h e fo l l o wi n g p re-p ri n t ed tex t : “ I h av e t h i s d ay

6s erv ed t h e d efen d an t

_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ p e r s o n al l y wi t h a co py of t h e wi t h i n act i o n an d

s u m m o n s.” Th e n am e “ W i l li am Treweek ” i s han d w ri t t en o n t h e b l an k li n e p ro v i d ed

fo r i den t i fy i n g t h e “ d efen d an t ” u p o n wh o m “ Pers o n al ” s erv i ce was m ad e. T he s erv i ce

fo rm co nt ai n s n o ad d i ti o n al i nfo rm at i o n i d en t i fy i n g W i l l i am Treweek

.

Al t h ou g h DAX cl ai m s t h at Nei gh b o rh o o d Ho m es & Real t y was it s “ p rev i ou s

reg i s tered ag en t i n No rt h Caro l i n a,” i t i d e n t i f i es n o reco rd ev i d en ce s u p po rt i n g i t s

i n feren ce t h at Nei g h b o r h o o d Ho m es & Real t y n o lo ng er was au t h o ri zed t o accep t

s erv i ce o n i t s b eh al f i n Ju l y 2 0 1 6

. Th e 2 0 1 3 rev ocat i o n o f DAX’ s au t h o ri t y t o t ran s act

b u s i n es s i n No rt h Caro l i na d i d n o t

, s t an d i n g al o ne, t erm in at e t h e au t ho ri t y o f DAX’ s

reg i s tered ag en t i n N o rt h Caro l i n a. See N. C. Gen

. St at

. § 5 7 D-7 -3 1 (e) (“ Rev o cat i o n

o f a fo rei g n LLC’ s cert i fi cat e o f au t h o ri t y d o es n o t t erm i n at e t h e au t ho ri t y o f t h e

reg i s tered ag en t o f t h e fo rei g n LLC.”); acco rd OCGA § 1 4 -1 1 -7 0 9 (e) (“ Rev o cat i o n

o f a fo rei g n l i m i t ed l iab i l i t y co m p an y ’ s cert i fi cat e of au t ho ri t y d o es n o t term i n at e t h e

au t h o ri t y o f t h e reg is t ered ag en t o f t h e fo rei g n l i m it ed l iab i l i t y co m pan y .”).

Nev ert h el es s

, p ret erm i t t i n g wh et h er N ei g h b o rh o od Ho m es & Real t y was

au t h o ri zed t o accep t s erv i ce on DAX’ s b eh al f o n J u ly 2 0

, 2 01 6

, t h e en t ry o f s erv i ce

fo rm co nt ai n s n o i n d i cat i o n t hat t h e i n d i v i d u al w h o was s erv ed

– W il li am Treweek

– was au t h ori zed to accep t s erv i ce o n beh al f o f ei t h er DAX o r Nei g h b orh o o d Ho m es

7& Real t y

. On it s face, t h e fo rm i d en t i fi es T reweek as an i nd i v i d u al d efen d an t

, wh i ch

u n d i s p u t ab l y i s n o t t he cas e. Un d er t h es e ci rcu m s t an ces

, th e fo rm at b es t i d en t i fi es

Treweek as a pers o n wh o was p r e s en t at Nei gh b orh o o d Ho m es & Real t y ’ s ad d res s

o n Ju l y 2 0

, 2 0 1 6

. Ab s en t s o m e i n d i cat i o n i n t h e reco rd t h at Treweek was an ag en t o f

ei t h er DAX o r N ei g h b o rh o od Ho m es & Real ty

, th i s i s i n s u ffi ci en t t o s h o w t h at

s erv i ce was p erfect ed o n DAX t h ro u g h Nei g hb o rh oo d Ho m es & Real t y

. See Bo wer s

v. Eco no ma t i o n, In c.

, 2 0 8 Ga. Ap p

. 6 6 1

, 6 6 3 (4 3 1 SE2 d 4 2 0 ) ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( “ To p erfect

s erv i ce, a co p y o f t he co m p l ai n t an d su m

m o n s m u st b e d el i v ered t o a p ers o n wh o s e

p o s i t i on i s s u ch as t o affo rd reas o n ab l e as s u ran ce t h at h e w i ll in fo rm hi s p ri n ci p al t h at

s u ch p ro ces s h as b een s erv ed u p o n h i m .”) (ci t at io n an d pu n ct uat i o n o m i tt ed ); acco rd

S co tt v

. A t la n t a Da i r i es Co o p

. , 2 3 9 Ga. 72 1

, 72 4 (2 ) (2 3 8 SE2 d 3 4 0) (1 9 7 7 ) (t h e

o b ject o f s erv i ce o f p ro ces s i s t o g i v e n o t i ce o f s u i t t o th e d efen d an t). Th e tri al co u rt

t h erefo re d i d n ot ab u s e i t s d i s cret i o n wh en i t s et as i de t h e defau l t ju d g m en t fo r l ack

o f p ers on al ju ri s di ct i o n o v er DAX d u e t o i n s uffi ci en t serv i ce o f p ro ces s

. See Ro z i er

v. Ber t o

, 2 3 0 Ga. A p p. 4 2 7, 4 3 0 (4 9 6 SE2 d 5 44 ) (1 9 98 ) (t h i s Co u rt wi l l affi rm a t ri al

co u rt ’ s ru l i n g t h at i s ri g h t fo r an y reas o n).

82

. Del t a ch al l en g es t h e t ri al co u rt ’s d e term i n at i o n t h at i t fai led t o p ro v e

d am ag es as t o Arct u ru s

, wh i ch

, t h e co u rt fo u nd

, co n st i t u t es a n o n am en dab l e d efect

o n t h e face o f t h e reco rd . W e d i s cern n o erro r.

T o o b t ai n a d efau l t ju d g m en t i n an act i o n s o u n d i n g i n t o rt

, a pl ai n t i ff m us t

i n t ro du ce ev i d en ce es t ab li s h i n g t h e am o un t o f d am ag es

. See Bel l S o u t h Ad ver t i s i n g

& Pu b l i sh i n g Co r

p

. v. Ki n g d

o m Ad ven tu r es

, LLC

, 2 7 7 Ga. A p p

. 4 9 5

, 4 95 (1 ) (6 2 7

SE2 d 1 25 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (ci t i n g OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 5 (a)); acco rd Ta yl o r v. S t a p p

, 1 3 4 Ga. Ap p.

4 6 8

, 4 6 9 (2 ) (2 15 SE2 d 23 ) (1 97 5 ) (t h e s t at u to ry p h ras e “ ex del i ct o” d es cri bes a t o rt ).

Th e fai l ure t o p ro ve s u ch d am ag es co n s t i t u tes a n o nam en d ab l e d efect u n d er OCGA

§ 9 -1 1 -6 0 (d ) (3 ). GMC G r o u p

, In c. v. Ha r

s co Co rp

. , 3 0 4 Ga. Ap p

. 18 2

, 1 8 3 -1 8 4 (2 )

(6 9 5 SE2 d 7 0 2 ) (2 0 1 0 ).

In i t s o rd er gran t i n g a d efau l t j u d g m e n t a s r el i ef wi t h res p ect t o Del t a’ s

frau du l en t t ran s fer (i .e., t o rt ) cl ai m ag ai n s t A rct u ru s, th e t ri al co u rt award ed Del t a a

l i en ag ai n s t th e Ro s wel l p ro p ert y “ t o s ecu re [Del ta] ’ s ju d g m en t li en

, p l u s al l co s t s in

t h i s c a s e

. ” I t i s un d i s p u t ed t h at t h e Ro s wel l p ro p ert y cu rren t l y i s h el d b y Arct u ru s

.

Nev ert h el es s

, t h e ju d g m e n t d o e s n o t l i m i t th e l i en to am ou n ts i n w h i ch Del t a

al l eg ed l y h as b een d am ag ed b y Arct u ru s

. Th e l i en rat h er ex ten d s to (an d b ey o n d ) t h e

fu l l am o u n t o f Del t a’ s $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ju d g m e n t ag ai n s t D AX. Th e reco rd

, h o wev er,

9co n tai n s n o ev i d en ce es t ab li s h i n g t h a t A r c t u ru s i s l i ab l e fo r $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 o r m o re in

d am ag es

. At m o s t

, th e reco rd ev i d en ce su g g es t s t h at an y p o s si b l e l i ab i l it y o n t h e p art

o f A r ct u ru s i s l i m i t ed t o $ 3 44 ,8 6 0

, t h e t o t al o f al l am o u nt s t h at Del t a al l eg es DAX

s u p p l ied fo r t he p u rch as e o f an d i m p ro v em en ts t o t h e Ro s wel l p ro pert y

. 3 Ev en

accep t i n g t hes e am o u n t s as t h e o u t er li m i ts of Arct u ru s’ s po t en t i al li ab il i ty

, h o wev er,

t h e reco rd co n t ai n s n o ev i d en ce es t ab l i s h in g t h at Del t a in fact h as b een d am ag ed by

Arct u ru s i n t h i s o r an y

o t her am o u n t

.

On t h e fa c t s o f t h i s cas e, t h e ab s en ce o f su ch ev i d en ce co n s t i t u t es a

n o n am en d ab l e d efect on t h e fa c e o f t h e reco rd

. See G MC Gr o u p

, 3 0 4 Ga. Ap p

. at

1 8 3 -1 8 4 (2 ). T h e t ri al co urt th erefo re d i d n ot ab us e i ts d is cret i o n wh en it s et as i d e t h e

d efau l t ju d g m en t ag ai n s t Arct u ru s o n t h i s g ro u n d.

3

. Del t a al s o ch al l en ges t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g t h at it l ack s s t an di n g i n t h i s

cas e, co n t en d i n g t h at (i ) t h ere i s n o reco rd ev i d en ce t h at i t as s i g n ed i t s ri gh t s u n d er

t h e Cal i fo rn i a ju d g m en t ; an d (i i ) reg ard l es s

, t h e d efen d an t s ’ cl ai m i n t hi s reg ard cal l s

i n t o q u es t i o n o n l y wh et h er Del ta i s t h e real p art y -i n -i nt eres t

, wh i ch d o es n o t i m p l i cat e

t h e v al i d i t y o f t h e act i o n

. Th e d efen d an t s res p o nd

, i n rel ev an t p art

, th at t h ey p ro p erl y

3 Th e part i es hav e i den t i fi ed n o ev i d en ce o f t h e v al u e o f t he Ro s wel l p ro p ert y

.

10i n t ro du ced ev i d en ce o f Del t a’ s as s ig n m en t

, wh i ch es tab l is h es i t s l ack o f s t an d i n g an d

wh i ch , i n t u rn , d ep ri v es t h e t ri al co u rt o f ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h is cas e.

Th e cu rren t reco rd co n tai n s n o cl ear i n di cat i o n th at t h e t ri al co u rt h as s q u arel y

ad d res s ed wh et h er (a) ad m i s s i b l e ev i d en ce o f Del t a’ s p u rp o rt ed l ack o f s t an d i n g was

p r o p e r l y b efo re t h e co urt o r (b ) Del t a has wai v ed an y ch al l en g e i t m ay hav e t o t h e

ad m i s s i b i l i t y o f an y s u ch ev i d en ce. Gi v en ou r ru l i n g s ab o v e in Di v i s i o n s 1 an d 2

, we

n eed n o t ad d res s

– an d w e ex p res s n o o p i n i o n o n – ei t h er i s s u e. W e s im il arl y ex p res s

n o op i n i o n o n wh et h er, as s u m in g an y s uch ev i d en ce wa s p r o p erl y b efo re t h e t ri al

co u rt

, t h e co u rt was au t h o ri zed t o s et as i d e t h e d efau l t ju dg m en t d u e t o Del t a’ s

p u rp ort ed l ack o f st an d in g

. Co m p are Bl a ckmo n v. Ten et Hea lt h s ys t em S p a l d in g

, In c.

,

2 8 4 Ga. 3 6 9

, 3 71 (6 6 7 SE2 d 3 4 8) (2 0 0 8) (“ [A ] p l a i n t i f f wi t h s t an d i n g i s a

p rereq u i s i t e fo r t h e ex i s t en ce o f s u b j ect m at t er ju ri s d i ct i o n

. ” )

, wi t h Lewi s v. Va n

An d a

, 2 8 2 Ga. 76 3

, 7 65 (1 ) & n

. 2 (6 5 3 SE2 d 7 0 8 ) (2 0 07 ) (h o l d i ng th at t h e t ri al co u rt

d i d n o t err wh en i t d en i ed t he d efen d an t ’ s m ot i o n t o s et as id e a j u d gm en t du e t o t h e

p l ai n t i ff’ s p u rp o rt ed l ack o f s t an d i n g , o n g ro u n d s t h at (i ) t h e d efen dan t h ad wai v ed

h er ch al l en g e t o t h e p lai n t i ff’ s s t an d i n g

, an d (i i ) t h e p u rp o rt ed l ack o f s t an d i n g d i d n ot

affect th e t ri al co u rt ’ s su b ject m at t er ju ri s d i ct i o n ), Fu l t o n Co u n t y Bd

. o f As s es s o r s v.

Ca l li o p e Pr o per ti es

, LLC

, 3 1 2 Ga. Ap p

. 8 75

, 8 7 8-8 7 9 (1 ) (7 2 0 SE2 d 31 2 ) (2 0 1 1) (a

11ch al l en g e t o a p art y ’ s st an d in g t o i n v o k e t h e po wers o f t he co u rt can b e wai v ed ), an d

S n yd er v. Ca r t er

, 2 7 6 Ga. Ap p

. 4 2 6

, 42 7 (6 2 3 SE2 d 2 4 1) (2 0 0 5 ) (a co u rt ’ s l ack o f

s u b ject m at t er ju ri s d i ct i o n can n o t b e w ai v ed ). Fo r each o f t h e ab o v e reas o n s

, we

affi rm th e ju dg m en t o f t h e t ri al co u rt

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Mi l l er

, P. J., a n d

An d r ews

, J., co n cu r

.

12