Bоbby McClure and Taylor Jones appeal from a declaratory judgment resolving the viability of a consent judgment regarding a two and one-half acre tract of real property. The record shows that in 1991 appellee Barbara Raper sued her uncle, appellant Bobby McClure, for an accounting and was awarded an undivided one-third interest in two tracts of rеal property that McClure owned.
More than a year later, Raper filed a petition for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration of her rights as to: (a) whether she had lawfully rescinded the bid at the public sale, and (b) whether all issues pending in the previously filed petition for partition and accounting were settled. In response, appellants claimed that Raper had no right to rescind and further contended that in attempting to rescind she lost her undivided one-third interest in the two and one-half acre tract. After oral argument and consideration of affidavit evidence, the trial court ruled that Raper wrongfully sought to rescind the public sale bid, she had not lost her interest in the property, and the parties were ordered to belatedly close the transaction as required by the consent order. Apрellants appeal contending that declaratory relief was not appropriate, that the trial court improperly modified and amended the consent order, and, in the alternative, that they are entitled to an award of post-judgmеnt interest. Finding no error, we affirm.
1. Appellants contend the trial court erred in granting declaratory relief to Raper because there was no controversy with regard to her rights under the consent order. We disagree. Declaratory relief was appropriate to relieve Raper of uncertainty and insecurity with regard to her property rights. See OCGA § 9-4-1; Cobb County v. Ga.
2. We reject aрpellants’ contention that the declaratory judgment order improperly altered or modified the original consent dеcree. The trial court resolved the conflict in the decree over the property tax provisions and held that Rаper was obligated to abide by the original consent decree and directed her to proceed with the transaction and to pay the outstanding property taxes in accordance with the decree. The order simply sets forth the rights and obligations of the parties under the decree. Compare Rozier v. Davis/Smith Mortgage Corp.,
3. On his own behalf, McClure contends the trial court erred in failing to award post-judgment interest under OCGA § 7-4-12 based on the monies he was due after the public sale of the two and one-half acre tract. We disagree. Under Georgia law, “[a] 11 judgments in this state shall bear interest upon the principal amount recovered at the rate of 12 percent per year unless the judgment is rendered on a written contract or obligation providing for interest at a specified rate. . . .” Id.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The parties have had other related legal proceedings reviewed by this Court. See
The consent order provided that Jones would pay Raper for her one-third interest in the eight acre tract. In return, Raper agreed to execute a quitclaim deed conveying her interеst in the property to Jones. The provisions of the consent decree regarding the eight acre tract are not аt issue in this appeal.
OCGA § 7-4-12 was amended in 2003 to provide for annual interest at a rate equal to prime plus 3 percent. The amended code section applies to all civil actions filed on or after July 1, 2003, id. at (d), and thus, is not applicable in this case.