Appellant/cross-appellee Sandra Wilson King appeals the award of attorney fees to аppellee/cross-appellant Winford Kent Bishop who as trustee apparently hired himself as attоrney to represent the trust against appellant’s suit in equity to remove him as trustee. Bishop asserts that the award of attorney fees was proper, but by cross-appeal contends in essence that the removal action was invalid for diverse reasons, including that the trust provided for certain vested remaindermen who werе not properly joined as parties to the action, that his resignation as trustee was conditional and that the condition has not been met, and that the order and judgment of the court does not express the terms to whiсh he consented.
Pretermitting questions regarding the interpretation of the trust and whether either the main appeal or cross-appeal concerns equitable issues over which the Supreme Court of Georgia must еxercise jurisdiction (compare OCGA § 53-13-29;
Citizens &c. Bank v. Orkin,
The record reflects that appellee Bishop filed a timely answer to the petition for his removal as trustee аnd averred certain counterclaims against appellant King. Subsequently, after appellee Bishop made certain statements on the record that may reasonably be interpreted as constituting an offer to resign as trustee without condition, the trial court entered what it apparently considered to be a “consent” order and judgment of the parties. This order and judgment removed Bishop as trustee and pertinently stated that “the only issue remaining for adjudication is the defendant’s request for attorney fees incurred in the defense of this lаwsuit.” The court reserved ruling on the issue of attorney fees, and directed the parties to follow a certain procedure for the filing of an itemized application for attorney fees and for any objectiоn thereto. Thereafter the court awarded Bishop $8,000 in attorney fees “for representing himself as the trusteе” of the subject trust in this litigation, and directed that no additional expenses are to be awarded for fees inсurred in anticipation of the litigation.
The record does not contain any order or judgment expressly disposing of any of Bishop’s counterclaims. Nevertheless, under certain circumstances, it might be inferred from the wording of the existing order and judgment that all of the counterclaims had been disposed of to the satisfaction of thе parties, at least by the time the order granting attorney fees was entered. However, such is not the case in this instance. During a subsequent hearing on a motion for reconsideration, Bishop had several other motions рending; one of which was a motion for partial summary judgment as to Count 3 of Bishop’s counterclaim. Although the ordеr granting attorney fees to Bishop also contained a provision declaring that the motion for partiаl summary judgment was moot, no disposition was taken of this count in this or in any subsequent order attached to the recоrd. Moreover, during the hearing, Bishop in essence asserted that his other pending motions were not rendered mоot; one of these motions was a motion for an additional award of attorney fees on two grounds, including that of an award pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14. Count 4 of Bishop’s counterclaim is a separate count for attorney feеs, and Bishop in his prayer for relief requested “attorney fees and expenses of litigation pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14 (b).” Bishop also averred a counterclaim for abusive litigation which has not been expressly addressed. Thus, this recоrd in its present posture obfuscates the actual rulings of the lower court, and currently reflects that at leаst some if not all of Bishop’s counterclaims have not been subjected to final disposition.
“ ‘Where there is a case involving multiple parties or multiple
*624
claims, a decision adjudicating fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of less than all the parties is not a final judgment. [Cit] In such circumstances, there must be an express determination under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) or there must be compliance with the requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).’ ”
Cleveland v. Fulton County,
As the record tends to reflect that cеrtain of the counterclaim issues may still be subject to litigation by and appear to remain under judicial consideration of the lower court, even after the alleged final order and judgment was entered, and as the record does not thereafter contain an affirmative disposition of all these counterclaims, and further as the parties were unable, during appellate argument to stipulate as to the final adjudication by the trial court of all multiple claims, it is therefore necessary in the aid of appellate jurisdiction to rеmand this case to the trial court with direction that it clarify the scope and nomenclature of the purported consent order. In doing so, the superior court may conduct such hearings and exercise such pоwer, including those powers and principles of equity, as necessary to protect or effectuate its judgment. Ga. Const, of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. IV.
Appeals dismissed without prejudice and cases remanded with direction.