Court Opinion

ID: 9626481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:14:06.899412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:28.242113
License: Public Domain

CARLEY, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority unnecessarily reverses the judgment of the trial court based upon a ruling which Appellees did not seek, which the trial court did not make, and of which Appellant has not complained.
The majority correctly recognizes that the complaint sought both mandamus relief and damages. In their answer, Appellees included a motion to dismiss the mandamus claim. OCGA§ 9-11-12 (b) (6). In the *655concluding portion of the answer, Appellees asked the trial court to dismiss that mandamus claim, consistent with the motion, and further to deny Appellant all requested relief. Clearly, therefore, Appellees wisely directed their motion to the single claim of mandamus, thereby permitting the trial court to grant the motion to dismiss as to that claim without regard to the separate damages claim. Hardy Gregory, Jr., Georgia Civil Practice § 3-6 (B) (9) (g) (2nded. 1997). See also Goolsby v. Regents of the Univ. System of Ga., 141 Ga. App. 605, 610 (8) (234 SE2d 165) (1977), disapproved on other grounds, Donaldson v. Dept. of Transp., 262 Ga. 49, 53 (3) (414 SE2d 638) (1992).
In its order, the trial court never mentioned the claim for damages, but rather discussed only the mandamus claim, applying the legal standards for entitlement to a writ of mandamus. The trial court then stated that “[t]he Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the writ is DENIED.” The trial court’s reference to the writ clearly shows that the order is directed solely to the mandamus claim. Furthermore, the trial court’s order must be construed in connection with the motion to dismiss, even though such construction limits the generality of the order. See Clark v. Bd. of Dental Examiners, 240 Ga. 289, 294 (5) (240 SE2d 250) (1977). That order granted only the motion to dismiss, which, as discussed above, was directed to the mandamus claim alone. Thus, the claim for damages was not dismissed.
Appellant enumerated as error only the trial court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss the mandamus claim, as he recognized that “the issue of damages . . . has not been decided by the trial court. . . .” (Appellant’s brief, pp. 4-5, fn. 2.) We are “precluded from reviewing the propriety of a lower court’s ruling if the ruling is not contained in the enumeration of errors. [Cits.]” Felix v. State, 271 Ga. 534, 539 (523 SE2d 1) (1999).
Accordingly, this appeal does not concern the portion of the complaint seeking monetary damages, but only the mandamus portion, which involves the review of an administrative decision. Dunlap v. City of Atlanta, 272 Ga. 523, 524 (531 SE2d 702) (2000); Strohecker v. Gwinnett County Police Dept. 182 Ga. App. 853, 854 (2) (357 SE2d 305) (1987). Compare Harrell v. Little Pup Development & Constr., 269 Ga. 143, 144 (1) (498 SE2d 251) (1998); Offutt v. Earp, 200 Ga. App. 74 (1) (406 SE2d 571) (1991). Therefore, although the trial court’s order “was appealable under OCGA§ 5-6-34 (a) [(7)], [Appellant] was nevertheless required to obtain permission to file the appeal, and could not circumvent the discretionary application requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35. [Cits.]” Ladzinske v. Allen, 280 Ga. 264, 267 (626 SE2d 83) (2006). Because he failed to do so, this appeal should be dismissed. Ladzinske v. Allen, supra; Dunlap v. City of Atlanta, supra. Moreover, “[t]he dismissal of moot appeals is mandatory. [Cit.]” AJC Gwinnett News v. Corbin, 279 Ga. 842, 843 (621 SE2d *656753) (2005). Thus, even if Appellant was not required to file an application for discretionary appeal, dismissal of the appeal would still be mandated because the mandamus claim is moot and, the claim for damages is not in any way part of this appeal. Accordingly, I dissent to the reversal of the trial court’s judgment.
Decided February 26, 2007.
Lawson & Thornton, George O. Lawson, Jr., for appellant.
Linda K. DiSantis, Amber A. Robinson, Cleora S. Anderson, for appellees.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hines and Justice Melton join in this dissent.