Unifund CCR Partners, assignee of Direct Merchants Bank, N.A. (“Unifund”), appeals the trial court’s award of attorney fees and litigation expenses to Betty Mehrlander pursuant
Unifund brought a garnishment action against Mehrlander after obtaining a default judgment against her. 2 Mehrlander then moved to set aside the default judgment and filed a counterclaim against Unifund for malicious garnishment. Thereafter, Unifund consented to setting aside the default judgment and dismissed its garnishment action. Mehrlander, however, continued to pursue her counterclaim against Unifund and, within 45 days of the trial court’s denial of same, 3 filed a motion seeking attorney fees and litigation expenses under OCGA § 9-15-14 (a) and (b). 4 The trial court granted Mehr-lander’s motion for attorney fees and litigation expenses without holding a hearing, before allowing Unifund a full 30 days to respond to Mehrlander’s motion, 5 and without setting forth findings of fact and substantiated conclusions of law in its order. In response, Unifund filed a discretionary application for appeal with this Court, and shortly thereafter, the trial court entered an order attempting to vacate its earlier grant of attorney fees and litigation expenses. At that point, however, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over this case, 6 and leave to appeal was ultimately granted by this Court.
We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for attorney fees and litigation expenses under OCGA § 9-15-14 (a) using the “any evidence” standard, and one based on OCGA § 9-15-14 (b) for an “abuse of discretion.”
7
But here, we are unable to conduct any kind of meaningful appellate review as a result of the trial court
8
(1) failing to hold a hearing on Mehrlander’s motion for attorney fees and litigation expenses,
9
(2) ruling on the motion prior to the expiration of the 30-day period in which Unifund was entitled to file a
Accordingly, the trial court’s award of attorney fees and litigation expenses is vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court with direction that an evidentiary hearing be conducted upon proper notice in order to determine the amount, if any, of reasonable and necessary attorney fees and/or litigation expenses. 12 On remand, the trial court is also directed to (1) reconsider the award of attorney fees and litigation expenses, (2) provide, if necessary, an explanation of the statutory basis or bases for any award given under OCGA § 9-15-14 (a) and/or (b), as well as any findings of facts and conclusions of law necessary to support such an award, and (3) enter a new judgment from which the losing party may appeal. 13
Unifund’s remaining enumeration of error is that the trial court’s award of attorney fees and litigation expenses was not warranted. In light of our holdings supra, “these contentions are not [yet] ripe for our review.” 14
Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.
Notes
Reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses “shall” be awarded when there “existed such a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact that it could not be reasonably believed that a court would accept the asserted claim” and “may” be awarded when the trial court “finds that an attorney or party brought or defended an action . . . that lacked substantial justification.” OCGA § 9-15-14 (a), (b). An action lacks “substantial justification” when it is “substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, or substantially vexatious.” OCGA § 9-15-14 (b).
Mehrlander did not file an appellee’s brief. As such, we accept Unifund’s statement of facts as true because it is uncontroverted, and Mehrlander’s failure to point out material inaccuracies or incompleteness in the appellant’s brief “constitute[s] consent to a decision based on [Unifund’s] statement of facts.” Ct. App. R. 25 (b) (1).
See OCGA § 9-15-14 (e) (“Attorney’s fees and expenses under this Code section may be requested by motion at any time during the course of the action but not later than 45 days after the final disposition of the action.”).
Mehrlander’s motion asserted that Unifund’s claim completely lacked “any justiciable issue of law or fact” such that “it could not reasonably be believed that a court could accept the claim” and that Unifund’s claim “lacked substantial justification.” See OCGA § 9-15-14 (a), (b).
Unifund’s timely response to Mehrlander’s motion was filed after the trial court had already entered its order.
See OCGA § 5-6-35 (h) (“The filing of an application for appeal shall act as a supersedeas to the extent that a notice of appeal acts as supersedeas.”).
E.g., Rescigno v. Vesali,
See Cotting v. Coding,
C.A. Gaslowitz & Assocs.,
See
Unif. Sup. Ct. R. 6.2 (providing that “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the judge, each party opposing a motion shall serve and file a response, reply memorandum, affidavits, or other responsive material not later than 30 days after service of the motion”);
see also Butler v. Bolton Road Partners,
See Evers,
See Green v. McCart,
See DeRossett Enters.,
Moore v. Moore,