William G. Hatcher, Jr. v. Pamela Hatcher Stuart
A17A1182
| Ga. Ct. App. | Mar 30, 2017Background
- William G. Hatcher Jr. (executor) and Pamela Hatcher Stuart (sister) are parties to identical accounting petitions filed in two courts: Probate Court of Richmond County and Superior Court of Columbia County.
- Stuart sought an accounting of Hatcher’s actions as executor in both actions and additionally sought an accounting of a trust in the Superior Court action.
- On January 30, 2017, the Superior Court dismissed the trust-accounting claim and transferred the remaining accounting claim to the Probate Court under Uniform Transfer Rule T-4 and USCtR 19.1(A).
- The Superior Court also awarded attorney’s fees under OCGA § 9-11-37(d) against Hatcher for discovery noncompliance.
- Hatcher filed a direct appeal of both orders to the Court of Appeals; Stuart moved to dismiss the appeal.
- The Court of Appeals concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the direct appeal because the transfer/dismissal and the sanctions order were not final judgments and Hatcher did not use interlocutory appeal procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hatcher) | Defendant's Argument (Stuart) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court’s dismissal/transfer order is immediately appealable | The order is final and appealable | The order is not final because the proceeding continues in another court | Not appealable — transfer is continuation of same proceeding; order not final |
| Whether dismissal of the trust-accounting claim is directly appealable as to fewer-than-all-claims | Dismissal of that claim is final as to that cause of action | Partial-adjudication of multiple claims is not final without OCGA § 9-11-54(b) certification or interlocutory appeal | Not appealable — partial adjudication requires § 9-11-54(b) certification or interlocutory appeal procedure |
| Whether the attorney-fees order under OCGA § 9-11-37(d) is immediately appealable | The fees award is a final judgment separate from transfer | Sanctions for discovery noncompliance are interlocutory and not dispositive of the case | Not appealable — sanctions are interlocutory; appeal requires OCGA § 5-6-34(b) compliance |
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed for failure to follow interlocutory-appeal procedures | N/A — Hatcher did not obtain certificate of immediate review | Stuart moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction | Appeal dismissed for failure to obtain required interlocutory review/certificate |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffith v. Georgia Board of Dentistry, 175 Ga. App. 533 (transfer orders are not final appealable orders)
- In the Interest of W. L., 335 Ga. App. 561 (transfer to different type of trial court can be continuation of same proceeding)
- Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App. 628 (decision adjudicating fewer than all claims is not final absent § 9-11-54(b) or interlocutory appeal)
- Cornelius v. Finley, 204 Ga. App. 299 (sanctions for discovery noncompliance are not dispositive final judgments)
- Eidson v. Croutch, 337 Ga. App. 542 (attorney-fee order not immediately appealable when transfer order continues the proceeding)