Tim Sundy v. Friendship Pavilion Acquisition Company, LLC
A18A0290
| Ga. Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2017Background
- Tim and David Sundy appealed a superior court "Order on Joint Objection to Jurisdiction" in a dispossessory action after the superior court rejected their claim that it had lost subject-matter jurisdiction.
- No final judgment has been entered; the case remains pending in the superior court.
- The Sundys filed a direct appeal to the Court of Appeals asserting the order was appealable despite not being final.
- They argued two bases for direct appeal: (1) the collateral order doctrine; and (2) that the order was integrated with an interlocutory mandatory injunctive command.
- The Court of Appeals considered whether the order met exceptions to the final-judgment rule and whether interlocutory appeal procedures had been followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court order rejecting lack-of-jurisdiction argument is directly appealable under final-judgment rule | Sundys: order is appealable under the collateral order doctrine (so direct appeal permitted) | Order is interlocutory and subject to final-judgment requirement; collateral-order exception does not apply | Dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction; collateral-order doctrine doesn’t apply because review would still be possible after final judgment |
| Whether the collateral order doctrine applies | Sundys: the order is effectively final and separable, so immediate review required | The doctrine applies only to a very small class and only where denial of immediate review would make any review impossible | Court: doctrine inapplicable because denial of immediate review would not make review impossible; jurisdictional questions can be raised on appeal from final judgment |
| Whether the order is appealable as an interlocutory injunction under OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(4) | Sundys: the order is integrated with an interlocutory mandatory injunctive command so it is directly appealable | The order neither granted nor denied injunctive relief, so the interlocutory-injunction appeal provision is inapplicable | Court: not an interlocutory injunction order; § 5-6-34(a)(4) does not apply |
| Whether failure to follow interlocutory appeal procedures deprives Court of Appeals of jurisdiction | Sundys: sought direct appeal without obtaining certificate of immediate review or filing interlocutory-appeal application | Defendants: interlocutory appeal procedures are mandatory when applicable | Court: failure to comply with interlocutory procedures deprives Court of jurisdiction; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera v. Washington, 298 Ga. 770 (2016) (describing collateral-order doctrine and its narrow scope)
- In the Interest of W. L., 335 Ga. App. 561 (2016) (explaining finality requirement for appeals)
- Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829 (2013) (collateral-order doctrine requires that denial of immediate review would render any review impossible)
- India-American Cultural Assn. v. iLink Professionals, 296 Ga. 668 (2015) (describing purpose of interlocutory injunctions to preserve status quo)
- Eidson v. Croutch, 337 Ga. App. 542 (2016) (failure to follow interlocutory-appeal requirements generally deprives appellate court of jurisdiction)