Fred Jones Enters. LLC v. Williams

Although the trial court properly concluded that it was without jurisdiction to rule upon the appellant's extraordinary motion for new trial during the pendency of its appeal from the denial of its motion to set aside a default judgment, the trial court was re-vested with jurisdiction to consider the appellant's motion as to damages once the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to set aside the default judgment.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Dewey Williams filed a personal injury lawsuit against Fred Jones Enterprises, LLC “FJE” and obtained a default judgment against FJE after FJE failed to file any responsive pleadings. FJE filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, which was denied. FJE filed an extraordinary motion for new trial on the issue of damages and, three days later, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion to set aside. The trial court granted FJE’s extraordinary motion for new trial on the issue of damages, but then vacated that order on the grounds that it “lost jurisdiction” over the matter once the case was appealed to this Court. We granted FJE’s application for discretionary appeal in the instant case. Finding that the pendency of FJE’s appeal from denial of its motion to set aside the default judgment acted as a supersedeas depriving the trial court of the jurisdiction to consider FJE’s subsequent extraordinary motion for new trial, we affirm in part. However, the portion of the trial court’s order finding that “no further action is necessary or authorized by the court” is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for findings not inconsistent with this case.

The facts in this case are undisputed, and the issue before us is whether the trial court erred in finding that it was without jurisdiction to rule upon FJE’s extraordinary motion for new trial during the pendency of an appeal and that there is nothing further for it to review in this case. “This question is one of law, which we review de novo.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Guthrie v. Wickes, 295 Ga. App. 892, 892 673 SE2d 523 2009.

Fred Jones Enters. LLC v. Williams

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report