In this civil action, arising from The Harpagon Company, LLC’s “Harpagon” purchase at a tax sale of property formerly owned by Karen Davis, Davis appeals the trial court’s grant of a writ of possession of the subject property to Harpagon. Harpagon moves to dismiss the appeal, pursuant to OCGA § 9-7-22 c, arguing that Davis has failed to pay special master’s fees that are required to be paid prior to any further appeal. We agree and therefore dismiss Davis’s appeal. This is Davis’s fourth appeal in this matter.1 The general facts of the case are set forth in Davis I as follows: Around January 7, 1997, the DeKalb County Tax Commissioner issued a writ of execution, or fieri facias fi. fa., based on Davis’s failure to pay the 1996 ad valorem property tax due on her home. On April 16, 1997, the Tax Commissioner transferred the fi. fa. to MIICA, a third-party corporation. MIICA, in turn, apparently transferred the fi. fa. to Agio Corporation, which sought out a levy of Davis’s property. On August 6, 2002, a tax sale was conducted, and Davis’s property was sold to an affiliate of Harpagon. After waiting the required year following the tax sale, see OCGA § 48-4-45 a, Harpagon notified Davis of the barment of her right to redeem the property through a private process server. Davis, however, failed to redeem the property by paying the statutory redemption amount. OCGA § 48-4-42. On April 21, 2004, Harpagon filed a petition to quiet title pursuant to OCGA § 23-3-40. The case was presided over by a special master, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the special master determined that a genuine issue of material fact remained regarding whether there had been a proper levy on the property. The special master further determined that, contrary to Davis’s contentions, she had sufficiently been placed on notice of both the transfer of the fi. fa. to Agio Corporation and the barment of her right of redemption. Davis chose to appeal this decision. . . . While that appeal was pending, the trial court ordered the parties to share responsibility for the payment of the interim fees of the special master. In a separate related case, Davis appealed that order as well. Footnotes omitted. Davis I , supra, 281 Ga. at 250-251. In Davis I , the Supreme Court rejected nearly all of Davis’s claims but held that there was a question of fact as to whether there had been a proper levy on the property. Id. at 252 4. The Supreme Court also held that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to levy special master’s fees while there was a pending appeal. Id. at 253 8.
After the case returned to the trial court, Harpagon filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of the levy’s propriety, which the trial court granted. Davis II , supra, 283 Ga. at 540. Subsequently, Davis again appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging several enumerations of error. In Davis II , the Supreme Court rejected Davis’s claims of error and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Harpagon on the issue of the levy’s propriety. Id. at 540-541 1.
