Pamela Hatcher Stuart v. William G. Hatcher, Jr.
A17A1322
| Ga. Ct. App. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- William G. Hatcher Jr. (executor) and Pamela Hatcher Stuart are siblings; Stuart filed petitions for an accounting against Hatcher in both Richmond County Probate Court and Columbia County Superior Court (the suits were essentially identical, except the superior-court complaint also sought an accounting of a trust).
- The Superior Court of Columbia County dismissed the trust-accounting claim and transferred the remaining executor-accounting claim to the Probate Court of Richmond County under Uniform Transfer Rule T-4 and USCtR 19.1(A).
- The superior court also awarded attorney fees under OCGA § 9-11-37(d) as a sanction for Hatcher’s failure to respond to discovery.
- Hatcher filed a direct appeal from the superior-court orders; that appeal was dismissed for failure to follow appellate procedures.
- Stuart filed a cross-appeal from the superior-court dismissal/transfer and the attorney-fee sanction; the Court of Appeals dismissed the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the orders were not final and she did not pursue interlocutory review procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior-court dismissal/transfer order is a final, appealable judgment | Stuart would treat the dismissal/transfer as appealable | Hatcher (and court) treated transfer as continuation of same proceeding, not final | Transfer/dismissal is not a final appealable order; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the dismissal of the trust-accounting claim is separately appealable | Stuart sought immediate review of dismissal of trust claim | Defendant relied on rule that partial adjudication of claims is not final without statutory certification | Dismissal of the trust claim is not final absent OCGA § 9-11-54(b) certification or interlocutory appeal compliance |
| Whether the attorney-fees sanction under OCGA § 9-11-37(d) is immediately appealable | Stuart appealed the fee award as part of cross-appeal | Defendant argued fee order did not dispose of case and is not final | Fee award is not immediately appealable because it does not dispose of the case and transfer continued the proceeding |
| Whether failure to follow interlocutory appeal procedures deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction | Stuart did not obtain a certificate of immediate review from the trial court | Defendant asserted procedural default; court emphasized interlocutory rules | Failure to comply with OCGA § 5-6-34(b) interlocutory procedures deprives court of jurisdiction; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffith v. Ga. Bd. of Dentistry, 175 Ga. App. 533 (transfer orders are not final appealable judgments)
- In the Interest of W.L., 335 Ga. App. 561 (transfer to a different type of trial court can still be continuation of same proceeding and not final)
- Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App. 628 (partial adjudication of fewer than all claims is not final absent OCGA § 9-11-54(b) or interlocutory compliance)
- Eidson v. Croutch, 337 Ga. App. 542 (attorney-fee orders tied to nonfinal transfer are not immediately appealable)
- Cornelius v. Finley, 204 Ga. App. 299 (attorney-fee award is not a final order when the underlying proceeding continues)