FI FTH DI VI SI ON

DI LLA R D, C. J.

, RA Y and M ERCI ER, 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 l s .us /r ule s

A pr i l 18, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 8 A0 22 4 . DRAIN et al . v

. LEE.

A1 8 A0 22 5 . DRAIN et al . v

. LEE.

R A Y , J u d g e.

Lo v o n e J o y ce Drai n , i n d i v i d u al l y an d as p ers o n al rep res en t at i v e o f t he es t at e

o f h er m o t h er, El o i s e Sm i t h

, fi l ed t wo ap p eal s fro m t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ord ers rel at ed to

cl ai m s s h e fi l ed ag ai ns t

, i n t er al i a, t h e ap p el l ee h erei n , Dr. Pet er L ee. W e u p h el d t h e

t ri al co urt ’ s o rd er gran t i n g Dr. Lee’ s m o ti o n t o en fo rce an offer o f ju d g m en t as t o an

award o f at t o rn ey fees in an u n p u b l i s h ed d eci s i on , D r a i n v. Lo n g l ea f Ho s p i ce, LLC

,

_ _ Ga. A p p

.

_

_ (Cas e No

. A1 7 A1 4 5 2

, d eci d ed Feb ru ary 27

, 2 01 8 ) (“ Dr a i n I ”). Th e

i n s t an t ap p eal s, wh i ch are co n s o l i d at ed fo r o ur rev i ew, are rel at ed t o Dr a i n I

. As t h es e

cas es h av e a co m

p l icat ed p ro ced u ral h is t ory , w e wi l l rev i e w o n l y t ho s e p o rt i on s

p ert i nen t t o t h e i n s t an t ap p eal s

.As an i n i t i al m at t er, t h e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed su m m ary ju d g m en t t o D r. Lee o n

Drai n ’ s c l ai m s ag ai n s t h i m

. Drai n d i d n ot ap p eal fro m t h at g ran t o f s u m m ary

ju d g m en t

. Fo l l o wi n g t h i s gran t o f s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, Dr. Lee m o v ed t h e t o en fo rce

an offer of ju d g m en t h e h ad m ad e t o Drai n p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 9

- 1 1 -6 8

. Th e t ri al

co u rt g ran t ed t h is m o t i on

. Drai n ap p eal ed

, an d in Dr a i n I

, s up ra at p p. 1 3-1 5 (2 ) (b ),

we affi rm ed t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s g ran t o f Dr. Lee’ s m o t io n t o en fo rce an d i t s fi n d i n g t h at

Dr. Lee was en t i t l ed u n d er OCGA § 9 -1 1 -6 8 (d ) (1 ) t o reas o nab le at t o rn ey fees an d

ex p en s es o f l i t i g at i o n

.

Ho wev er, aft er Dr a i n I was d o ck et ed in t hi s Co u rt

, Drai n fi l ed t h e t wo ap p eal s

t h at co m p ri s e th e in s tan t cas e, as wi l l b e ex p l ai n ed b el o w. Fo l l o wi n g t he t ri al co urt ’ s

g ran t o f D r. Lee’ s m o t i o n t o en fo rce, Dr. Lee s ou g h t a su p ers ed eas b on d

, an d Drai n

fi led a p au p er’ s affi d av i t s t at in g t h at s he w as u n ab l e t o p ay t hat b on d

. Th e t ri al co u rt

d et erm i n ed o n M ay 1 1

, 2 0 1 7

, t h at Drai n was n o t a p au p er an d o rd ered D rai n t o p o s t

b o n d

. Drai n fi led a n o t i ce o f ap p eal

, an d Dr. L ee m o v ed t o d i s m i s s t h at n o t i ce o f

ap p eal

. Th e t ri al co urt g ran ted t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e n o ti ce o f ap p eal o n J u n e 8,

2 0 1 7

. T h e t ri al co u rt reas on ed th at i t s o rd er fi n d i n g t h at Drai n w as n o t a p au p er an d

o r d e r i n g s u p ers ed eas b o n d was n o t s ub ject t o rev i ew. Drai n ap p eal s fro m t h e tri al

co u rt ’ s o rd er d i s m i ss i n g t he n o t i c e o f ap p eal i n Cas e N o

. A1 8 A0 2 2 4 ( Dr a i n II ). In

2Cas e No . A1 8A0 2 2 5 ( Dr a i n III ), s he ap p eal s t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er fi n d i n g t h at s h e

i s n o t a p au p er an d o rd eri n g h er t o p ay s u p ers ed eas b o n d

.

Ou r Su p rem e Co u rt h as h el d t h at “ Geo rg i a l aw g en eral l y res e r v e s t o t h e

ap p el l at e co u rt s t h e au t h o ri t y to d is m i ss ap p eal s

. . . . A n ap p el l at e co u rt i s t h e s o l e

au t h o ri t y i n d et erm i n i n g w h et h er a fi l ed n o ti ce o f ap p eal

. . . i s s u ffi ci en t t o i n v o k e

i t s ju ri s di ct i o n.” (Ci t at io ns an d p u n ct u at io n o m i t t ed .) Jo n es v. Pea ch Tr a d er In c ., 3 0 2

Ga. 5 04

, 50 6 (II) (8 0 7 SE2 d 8 4 0 ) (2 0 1 7 ), ci t i n g OCGA § 5-6 -4 8

. Th u s , t h e t ri al co u rt

i n Dr ai n II erred i n d i s m i s s i ng Drai n ’ s n o t i ce o f ap p eal . Ho wev er, OCGA § 5 -6 -4 7

(b ) p ro v i d es t h at “ [t ] h e ju d gm en t o f t h e [t ri al ] co u rt on al l i s su es o f fact co n cern i n g

t h e ab i l i t y

o f a p art y

t o p ay co s t s o r g i v e b on d s h a l l be f i n a l .” (Em

p h as i s s u p p l i ed ).

Acco rd Cu mb er l a nd Co n tr a ct o r s

, In c. v. S t a t e Ba nk a n d Tr u s t Co

. , 32 7 Ga. Ap p

. 1 2 1,

1 2 9 (5 ) (7 55 SE2 d 51 1 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (“ [T] h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g o n t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e

[d ] efen dan t s t o p os t a b o n d i s n o t s u b j ect t o r evi ew ”) (ci t at i on o m i t t ed ; em p h as i s

s u p p li ed ). OCGA § 5 -6 -4 8 (b ) (2 ) p ro v i d es fo r d is m i ss al o f ap p eal s wh ere, as h ere,

“ t h e d eci s i o n o r ju dg m en t i s n o t t hen ap p eal ab le[. ]” F u rt h er, b ecau s e o f o u r

d et erm i n at i o n i n Dr a in I t h at th e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er as t o D r. Lee’ s m o t io n t o en fo rce

ju d g m en t was co rrect

, t h e ap p eal s i n b o t h Dr ai n II an d Dr a i n III are m o o t

. See OCGA

§ 5 -6 -4 8 (b ) (3 ) (“ N o a p p eal s h al l b e d i s m i s s ed o r i t s v al i d it y affect ed

. . . ex cep t :

.

3. . . . . [w] here t h e q u es t i o n s pres en t ed h av e b eco m e m o ot ”). Th erefo re, we v acat e t h e

t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er i n Dr a in II an d d i s m i s s t h at ap p eal as m o o t

. See Jo n es , s u p ra at

5 0 4 . W e al s o d i s m i s s t he ap p eal i n D r a i n III as m oo t

.

W e no t e, h o wev er, t h at t h e i n s t an t cas es rai s e p ro ced ural is s u es w h i ch t h e

l eg i s lat u re m ay wi s h t o ad d res s. Here, bo t h Dr a i n II an d Dr a in III were d o ck et ed at

t h e ap p el lat e l ev el i n t h e t erm o f Co u rt fo l l o wi n g t he t erm i n wh i ch we d eci ded Dr a in

I

, wh i ch s u b s t an t i ve d eci si o n u n d erl i es b o th s u b s eq u en t ap p eal s

. Th i s tim ing vir tual l y

as s u red t hat th e p os t in g o f t h e su p ers ed eas b o n d o rd ered by t h e t ri al co u rt wo u l d b e

h el d i n ab ey an ce pen d i n g t h e o u t co m e o f t h e ap p eal i n Dr a i n I

. Th e l aw is cl ear t h at

,

ex cep t i n ex t rao rd i n ary ci rcu m s t an ces , 1 th e t ri al co urt ’ s ju dg m en t on t h e ab i l i t y o f a

p art y t o p ay co s ts o r gi ve b o n d i s n o t rev i ewab l e. See Cu mb er l a n d

, s u p ra at 1 2 9 (5 ).

Yet

, b y fi l i n g a n o t i ce o f ap p ea l o f an o rd er on a p au p er’ s affi d av i t an d a n o t i ce

ap p eal i n g t h e tri al co u rt ’ s di s m is s al o f th at ap p eal

, a l i t i g an t effect i v el y m ay d el ay t h e

fi nal it y o f t h e o rd er o n an d p o st i n g o f t h e s u p e r s e d e as b o n d un t i l a d eci s i o n o n t h e

m eri t s i s ren d ered i n t h e u nd erl y i n g cas e, wh ich in th e in s t an t act i o n was Dr a i n I

. Th e

1 See Ba r h a m v. Levy

, 2 2 8 Ga. Ap p

. 5 94

, 5 96 (4 ) (4 92 SE2 d 3 25 ) ( 1 9 9 7 ) (rem an d i n g cas e an d rev ers i n g t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er d en y i n g p au p er’ s affi d av i t wh ere n o fact i s s ues were p res en t ed

, p au p er’ s affi d av it was no t co nt es t ed

, an d n o ev i d en ce

s h o wed t h at ap p el l an t was n o t i n d i g en t ; t h u s , n o ev i den ce s u p p o rt ed t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

ru l i n g).

4ap p eal s i n Dr a i n II an d III d em o n s t rat e t h at

, i n s o m e cas es , OCGA § 5 -6 -4 7 (b ) m ay

effect i v el y b e ren dered i n ert b y a p art y w h o ei t h er ap p eal s an u n rev i ewab l e o rd er o r

ap p eal s im

p ro perl y

. Fo r t h es e reas o n s , fu rt h er l eg i s lat i v e co n s i d erat i on o f t h i s m at t er

m ay b e warran t ed

.

J u d g men t va ca ted a n d a

p p ea l di s mi s s ed i n Ca s e No

. A1 8 A0 2 24

. Ap

p ea l

d i s mi s s ed i n Ca s e No

. A1 8A0 22 5

. Di l l a r d, C. J., co n cu r s

. Mer ci er

, J., co n cu rs in

t h e j u d g men t o n ly

. *

* THI S OPI NI ON I S P H Y S I CAL PRECEDENT ONLY. SEE C OURT OF

APPEALS RULE 3 3 .2

.

5