Richard C. Barnes v. Diamond South Construction, LLC
A21A1519
| Ga. Ct. App. | Jul 23, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Richard C. Barnes sued Diamond South Construction, LLC over a construction contract dispute.
- Diamond South filed a compound motion: stay proceedings under OCGA § 8-2-37 (to enforce § 8-2-38), to compel arbitration, and for attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14.
- The trial court granted all three requests: stayed the case, compelled arbitration, and awarded fees to Diamond South.
- Barnes filed a direct appeal from that order; Diamond South moved to dismiss for lack of a final, appealable judgment.
- The Court of Appeals held Barnes failed to follow the interlocutory-appeal procedure (OCGA § 5-6-34(b)) required for these nonfinal rulings and therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the grant of the motion to compel arbitration is directly appealable | Barnes appealed directly from the order compelling arbitration | The order is interlocutory and not directly appealable; interlocutory application procedure required | Not directly appealable; appellant must use OCGA § 5-6-34(b) interlocutory procedure |
| Whether the stay under OCGA § 8-2-37 is directly appealable | Barnes appealed the stay directly | The stay is a nonfinal order; interlocutory review is required | Stay is not a final judgment; interlocutory application required |
| Whether the attorney-fee award under OCGA § 9-15-14 is directly appealable | Barnes appealed the fee award directly | Because the action remains pending, the fee award is nonfinal and interlocutory review is required | Fee award review requires OCGA § 5-6-34(b) interlocutory procedure when case is pending |
| Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the direct appeal | Barnes proceeded by direct appeal without obtaining interlocutory review | Diamond South moved to dismiss for lack of final judgment and jurisdiction | Court lacked jurisdiction due to Barnes’s failure to follow interlocutory-appeal requirements; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Goshayeshi v. Mehrabian, 232 Ga. App. 81 (1998) (order compelling arbitration is interlocutory and reviewable only by interlocutory application)
- Austin Regional Home Care, Inc. v. Careminders Home Care, Inc., 344 Ga. App. 608 (2018) (same principle applied to arbitration orders)
- Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Riverdale Apartments, Ltd. Partnership, 218 Ga. App. 685 (1995) (stay under OCGA § 8-2-37 is nonfinal and not directly appealable)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832 (1996) (when an interlocutory order implicates the discretionary-appeal statute, the appellant must comply with interlocutory-application procedure)