Heidi K. Cooper v. Citimortgage, Inc., A17D0236

Heidi K. Cooper filed a second quiet-title action naming CitiMortgage and others; the trial court dismissed the suit on res judicata grounds on October 12, 2016.
Cooper then filed motions: (1) to voluntarily dismiss two co-defendants, and (2) to amend the trial court’s final order to reflect those dismissals.
Cooper argued the October 12 order was interlocutory because CitiMortgage’s attorney did not represent the two co-defendants she sought to dismiss.
The trial court denied her post-judgment motions; Cooper filed a discretionary application to this Court within 30 days of that denial.
The Court of Appeals examined whether the October 12 order was final and whether Cooper’s procedural steps preserved appellate jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the October 12 order final for appeal?	Cooper: order was interlocutory because CitiMortgage’s counsel did not represent two defendants.	Order dismissed the suit on res judicata as to all defendants; no claims remained.	Final: the order was final because it resolved the suit; appeal period began.
Did Cooper’s post-judgment motions toll or extend the appeal period?	Cooper: filing motions to dismiss co-defendants and to amend the order affected finality/timing.	Filing those motions were effectively motions for reconsideration and do not extend appeal time.	Denied: motions were reconsideration in substance and did not toll or extend appeal time.
Could the Court grant the discretionary application under OCGA § 5-6-35(j)?	Cooper sought discretionary review within 30 days of denial of motions.	The underlying order was appealable directly; no subsection of § 5-6-35 applied to permit relief.	Dismissed: Court lacked authority under § 5-6-35(j); application dismissed.
Is an order denying reconsideration independently appealable?	Cooper implicitly treated denial as a trigger for appeal.	Precedent: denial of reconsideration is not independently appealable and does not toll appeal deadlines.	Held: denial is not appealable on its own and does not toll appeal deadlines.

Andemeskel v. Waffle House, 227 Ga. App. 887 (1997) (order that disposes of all issues is final for appeal purposes)
Perlman v. Perlman, 318 Ga. App. 731 (2012) (timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute jurisdictional requirement)
Dept. of Transp. v. Camvic Corp., 284 Ga. App. 321 (2007) (motions are construed by substance and function, not by name)
Bell v. Cohran, 244 Ga. App. 510 (2000) (order denying motion for reconsideration is not independently appealable)
Cheeley-Towns v. Rapid Group, Inc., 212 Ga. App. 183 (1994) (motion for reconsideration does not extend appeal time)
Harris v. State, 278 Ga. 280 (2004) (motions to reconsider do not toll the time for filing an application to appeal)