Grover L. Benton, Jr v. Lebolo Roofing and Development LLC.
A26D0048
Ga. Ct. App.Sep 8, 2025Background
- In 2022, Benton sued Lebolo Roofing & Development, LLC and Emilio Lebolo. Defendants did not answer, and the trial court entered a default judgment for $115,999.71 in April 2023.
- Defendants later filed (in 2025) a special-appearance motion to set aside the default judgment, asserting they were never served and that the 2023 judgment was void.
- Because the original lawsuit had been closed, the clerk assigned the 2025 motion a new docket number (an administrative step under OCGA § 15-6-61(a)(4)(A)). The trial court characterized this as not creating a new independent case.
- The trial court granted defendants’ motion to set aside the default judgment on June 30, 2025, and directed that an order reopening the case be filed in the original 2022 docket.
- Benton filed, in the 2025 docket, a motion to vacate the June 30 order; the trial court denied Benton’s motion and filed the order in both dockets. Benton then sought appellate review of the order denying his motion.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed Benton’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order setting aside the default judgment (and denial of the motion to vacate that grant) was interlocutory and Benton did not follow the interlocutory-appeal procedure in OCGA § 5-6-34(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s grant of the motion to set aside default judgment and denial of Benton’s motion to vacate is immediately appealable | Benton argued the order should be reviewable on appeal (he sought discretionary appeal) | Defendants argued the order merely reopened the case and was interlocutory; Benton failed to use interlocutory procedures | Held: Not final; interlocutory. Benton failed to obtain certificate of immediate review and permission under OCGA § 5-6-34(b); appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the 2025 docket number created a new, independent case | Benton implied the filings under a new docket indicated a separate action subject to appeal | Defendants and trial court maintained the new docket number was an administrative clerk action and did not create a new action | Held: The new docket number was administrative and did not transform the post-judgment proceeding into a new case |
| Whether filing an application for discretionary appeal excuses compliance with interlocutory procedures | Benton relied on his discretionary-appeal filing to seek review | Defendants contended procedural prerequisites still applied | Held: Filing an application for a discretionary appeal does not excuse compliance with OCGA § 5-6-34(b) interlocutory procedures |
| Whether the denial of Benton’s motion to vacate the set-aside order finally resolved the matter | Benton treated the denial as final and appealable | Defendants treated the denial as part of an interlocutory post-judgment reopening | Held: Denial was not a final judgment; case remains pending and appeal was premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Laff Lines, Ltd. v. Dimauro, 186 Ga. App. 24 (emphasis that granting motion to set aside default judgment leaves case pending)
- Guy v. Roberson, 214 Ga. App. 391 (denial of motion to vacate set-aside is interlocutory; interlocutory appeal procedure required)
- Eidson v. Croutch, 337 Ga. App. 542 (filing discretionary-appeal application does not excuse interlocutory appeal prerequisites)
- Cowart v. Ga. Power Co., 362 Ga. App. 574 (administrative reassignment of a new docket number does not create a new action)