X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In March 2006, appellee Chief Judge Perry Brannen, Jr., notified the parties in a legal malpractice action filed in the Superior Court of Chatham County and assigned to Chief Judge Brannen that the lawsuit had been automatically dismissed by operation of law in January 2005 under the “five-year rule” set out in OCGA § § 9-2-60b and 9-11-41e, and that the six-month period within which the action could be re-commenced had expired in July 2005. After Chief Judge Brannen declined the request to memorialize his determination in a written order, appellant Amy Zepp, the plaintiff in the legal malpractice action, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Chief Judge Brannen and appellee Dan Massey, the Clerk of the Superior Court of Chatham County, to recognize that her legal malpractice case is still pending. 1 The trial court dismissed the petition for mandamus after determining appellant had no legal right to the relief, the trial court having found that written orders setting a pre-trial conference, signed by Chief Judge Brannen and filed in the record of the legal malpractice action, did not suspend the running of the “five-year rule” because they had not been initiated by the motion of either party, thereby making the signed, written, and filed orders “mere housekeeping or administrative orders” that did not suspend the running of the five-year period.2 This appeal followed. OCGA § § 9-2-60b and § 9-11-41e are the statutory embodiment of the “five-year rule.” Together, they provide for the automatic dismissal of any action filed in a Georgia court of record when “no written order is taken for a period of five years . . . .” The legislative intent in enacting the precursor statute in 1953 “was to remove from trial courts those cases whose continued pendency only clutter the dockets” City of Chamblee v. Village of North Atlanta , 217 Ga. 517 3b 123 SE2d 663 1962, generally, the “great number of cases which, to all intents and purposes had been abandoned by both parties, and in many instances had been settled without clearing the docket . . . .” Lewis v. Price , 104 Ga. App. 473 2 122 SE2d 129 1961. The statute also serves to protect litigants from dilatory counsel. See Ga. Dept. of Med. Assistance v. Columbia Convalescent Ctr. , 265 Ga. 638 1 458 SE2d 635 1995; Swint v. Smith , 219 Ga. 532 3 134 SE2d 595 1964.

In order to toll the running of the five-year period that results in automatic dismissal for non-action, “an order must be written, signed by the trial judge, and properly entered in the records of the trial court by filing it with the clerk.” Republic Claims Service Co. v. Hoyal , 264 Ga. 127, 128 441 SE2d 755 1994; Scott v. DeKalb County Hosp. Auth. , 168 Ga. App. 548 1 309 SE2d 635 1983. These criteria mirror the statutory requirements for entry of a judgment OCGA § 9-11-58 and are a “bright-line rule of enforcement” that further the statutory dual purposes “by adding certainty and objective consistency to the manner in which its provisions are applied.” DOT v. Tillett Bros. Constr. Co. , 264 Ga. 219, 220 443 SE2d 610 1994. A written, signed, and properly-filed order need not advance or resolve the litigation, grant or deny affirmative relief, or have been obtained by the party seeking to use it to toll the running of the five-year rule in order to qualify as a tolling order. Id., at 221. The order at issue in Tillett Bros. met the criteria to toll the running of the five-year rule because it was written, signed by the trial judge and properly entered in the records of the trial court. We sua sponte added another requirement —that a tolling order must be one entered in response to a motion initiated by a party. That addition was obiter dicta lacking the force of an adjudication because it was a statement in an opinion “concerning some rule of law or legal proposition not necessarily involved nor essential to determination of the case in hand . . . .” Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 541 4th ed. 1968. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently noted, “We are not bound to follow our dicta in a prior case where the point now at issue was not fully debated.” Central Virginia Community College v. Katz , 546 U.S. 356, __ 126 SC 990, 996, 163 LE2d 945 2007. We keep in mind the statement of Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia , 6 Wheat. 264, 399-400 5 LE 257 1821, “It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for adjudication.”

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
May 01, 2025
Atlanta, GA

The Daily Report is honoring those attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession.


Learn More
December 11, 2024
Las Vegas, NV

This event shines a spotlight on how individuals and firms are changing the investment advisory industry where it matters most.


Learn More
February 24, 2025 - February 26, 2025
Las Vegas, NV

This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.


Learn More

McCarter & English, LLP is actively seeking a litigation associate for its office located in Hartford, CT. One to three years of experie...


Apply Now ›

Borteck & Czapek, P.C., based in Florham Park, is a boutique estates and trusts law firm specializing in estate planning and administrat...


Apply Now ›

Gwinnett County State Court is seeking an attorney to assist the Judge by conducting a variety of legal research, analysis, and document pre...


Apply Now ›