Court Opinion

ID: 9585548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:01:33.913319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:28.992695
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the other dissent. Even if we would not be departing from the precedent set in Connell v. Long, 248 Ga. 716 (286 SE2d 287) (1982), we should not set aside the rules of proper procedure or create exceptions thereto, without analyzing the consequences of doing so. The expressly delineated procedure set out in the Civil Practice Act § 50 has been in existence for almost 30 years, and if it need not be adhered to, it should be changed rather than ignored. Section 58, for example, governs the entry of judgment. There has been no judgment entered in this case, so it is difficult to identify what appealable decision gives the right to a direct appeal. See OCGA §§ 5-6-34 (a) (1); 5-6-38 (a).
How can a verdict be directed after the jury returns its verdict and is disbanded, as was done here?1 The verdict was returned on July 1 and entered on July 2, and the order granting the motion for directed verdict was entered on July 7. The appeal is from the order, not from any judgment.
The procedure utilized is further confused by the effort of plaintiff to move for j.n.o.v. or for new trial pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-50 (b) four days after the verdict was entered, but there was no judgment. Subsection (b) provides that such a motion may be made “[n]ot later than 30 days after entry of judgment.” This was even before the motion for directed verdict was ruled on. The plaintiff’s subsection *845(b) motion was never ruled on. However, the court did deny defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the order granting a directed verdict to plaintiff.
Decided March 22, 1994
Reconsideration denied April 7, 1994.
Brannen, Searcy & Smith, David R. Smith, Wayne L. Durden, for appellant.
Duffy & Feemster, Robert J. Duffy, Dwight T. Feemster, Jo Beth Gosdeck, Kent, Williamson & Brannon, A. Martin Kent, Doris E. Brannon, for appellee. .
Certainly the administration of the judicial system should seek to achieve “the speedy, efficient, and inexpensive resolution of disputes,” 1983 Ga. Const., Art. VI, Sec. IX, Par. I. In that regard, it may be high time to revisit the Civil Practice Act and streamline the process so as to reduce costs and delay while maintaining order, predictability, and due process. However, a departure such as the one employed here not only fails to take into account the ramifications of failing to enter judgment on the jury verdict but also invites other piecemeal alterations based on consideration of discrete cases. Amendment to the Civil Practice Act in such a fashion lacks wisdom and authority.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray and Judge Andrews join in this dissent.

 Compare Bennett v. Associated Food Stores, 118 Ga. App. 711, 712 (1) (165 SE2d 581) (1968), which held in a case where there was no verdict that the court could direct one after dispersal of the jury.