Mountain Creek Hollow, Inc. MCHI hired David Cochran, d/b/a Whitepath Water Gardens, to install landscaping in a newly developed residential subdivision. Following a dispute regarding contract compliance on both sides, Cochran filed suit and MCHI counterclaimed. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Cochran, and MCHI appeals. Construed in favor of the verdict, the evidence shows that the original two contracts required MCHI to pay Cochran $49,256.78 $4,979.18 plus $44,277.60 in exchange for his services. Cochran testified that he performed the work, that MCHI failed to pay $13,801.67 $2,489.59 plus $11,312.08 of the total, and that interest was due in the amount of $9,787.30 on the unpaid balance. Cochran testified that he incurred attorney fees pursuing the case, but he did not testify to any amount or that the fees incurred were reasonable. MCHI counterclaimed, among other things, that Cochran breached the contract by failing to complete certain aspects of the work, and an agent of MCHI testified that the project had never been completed. The jury awarded Cochran $35,588.97, which was exactly $12,000.00 more than the unpaid balance plus interest. The verdict form did not separate these amounts, rather, it simply stated, “We the Jury find for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the amount of $35,588.97.” The form also indicated that the jury denied MCHI’s counterclaim. MCHI did not object to the form of the verdict. MCHI appeals.
1. Cochran first challenges this Court’s jurisdiction to hear MCHI’s appeal. The jury’s verdict was entered by the court on August 14, 2003. MCHI failed to file a notice of appeal or a motion for new trial within the next 30 days. During that time, MCHI did file a rule nisi regarding a potential motion for new trial, but it did not file the actual motion until September 19, 2003. The motion stated that MCHI was seeking an extraordinary motion for new trial pursuant to OCGA § 5-5-41, and an affidavit of counsel was attached in which counsel explained that the failure to timely file was the result of a clerical error for which an employee had been fired. On January 16, 2004, the court granted the request for an extraordinary motion for new trial, but then it denied the motion itself.
