Dillard, Presiding Judge. Premier Paving GP, Inc. appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion for class certification and the dismissal of its class-action counterclaim in IOU Central, Inc.’s lawsuit against it for breach of a promissory note. Premier Paving argues that the trial court’s order was based on two erroneous conclusions: (1) OCGA § 7-4-18 only applies to loans of less than $250,000; and (2) because the loan at issue could have been for 12 months, all interest charges should be spread over a 12-month period. But we need not reach the merits of these issues because the trial court skipped a crucial step—it neglected to address, as a threshold matter, whether the class-action prerequisites required by OCGA § 9-11-23 (a) (1)-(4) were satisfied. So, for this reason, we reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. IOU Central filed suit against Premier Paving to collect upon a promissory note in the principal amount of $277,500.00, to be paid over a 12-month period. Specifically, IOU Central alleged that Premier Paving failed to make the agreed upon payments as they came due, resulting in default and Premier Paving owing $132,668.51 in principal, interest at 14.25 percent, and different fees in the amounts of $18,708.40 and $75.00. Premier Paving answered IOU Central’s complaint and asserted a class-action counterclaim. In doing so, Premier Paving sought to sue IOU Central on behalf of itself and “[a]ll borrowers who took out a loan from Plaintiff from 20 years prior to the filing of this counterclaim until such time as the class is certified where the average monthly rate of interest on the useable money for borrowers exceeded 5% per month in any month of the loan’s period.” And as a defense to IOU Central’s action, Premier Paving asserted that the loan at issue was “usurious, illegal[,] and uncollectible under OCGA § 7-4-18 and OCGA § 7-4-3.” Thereafter, IOU Central moved to dismiss Premier Paving’s class-action counterclaim , arguing that because OCGA § 7-4-3 did not apply to the loan at issue, the class-action counterclaim should be dismissed. Further, IOU Central contended that even if the statute applied, the loan was still not usurious under Georgia law. Premier Paving proceeded by filing a motion for class certification. The trial court ruled upon the competing motions in a single order, concluding that the principal amount of the loan exceeded $250,000 and, thus, OCGA § 7-4-18 (a) did not apply. Instead, the court determined that OCGA § 7-4-2 (a) (1) (B) applied to the loan. The court also noted that even if OCGA § 7-4-18 (a) applied, the relevant interest rate was still under 5 percent. As a result, the court granted IOU Central’s motion to dismiss the class-action counterclaim and denied Premier Paving’s motion for class certification. IOU Central then moved for summary judgment, and that motion remains pending after Premier Paving filed its notice of appeal.[1] This appeal follows. Premier Paving argues that the trial court’s order—dismissing its class-action counterclaim and denying its motion for class certification—is based on two erroneous conclusions: (1) OCGA § 7-4-18 only applies to loans of less than $250,000; and (2) because the loan at issue could have been for 12 months, all interest charges should be spread over a 12-month period. But as previously noted, we need not reach these issues because the trial court neglected to address, as a threshold matter, whether the class-action prerequisites required by OCGA § 9-11-23 (a) (1)-(4) were satisfied. Whether to certify a class is “a matter committed to the discretion of the trial court, but any exercise of that discretion must comport with the statutory requirements.”[2] So, the certification of a class is “appropriate only to the extent the trial court is satisfied, after rigorous analysis, that the statutory requirements have been satisfied.”[3] And here, it is clear from both the trial court’s order—as well as the parties’ briefs—that the court dismissed Premier Paving’s class-action counterclaim and denied its motion for class certification solely on the merits of IOU Central’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. But as we have previously explained, under OCGA § 9-11-23 (f) (3), [w]hen deciding whether a requested class is to be certified, the [trial] court shall enter a written order addressing whether the factors required by this Code section for certification of a class have been met and specifying the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the court has based its decision with regard to whether each such factor has been established.[4] And those factors are as follows: (1) [t]he class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) [t]here are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) [t]he claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) [t]he representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.[5] While it is certainly appropriate to “consider the merits of the action sought to be certified to the degree necessary to determine whether the requirements of OCGA § 91123 have been satisfied,”[6] these merits questions “may be considered to the extent—but only to the extent—that they are relevant to determining whether the prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.”[7] As a result, any assertion that the named plaintiff “cannot prevail on her claims does not comprise an appropriate basis for denying class certification.”[8] And here, that is precisely what occurred when the trial court found, in effect, that the OCGA § 9-11-23 requirements were moot because there was no merit to the action.[9] Thus, because the trial court did not make the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law, there is nothing in the order for us to evaluate.[10] Accordingly, for all these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed to the extent it denied the motion for class-action certification by looking solely to the merits of the counterclaim.[11] And to the extent the trial court failed to properly analyze the requirements of OCGA § 91123 (a) (1)-(4), the trial court’s judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for entry of a more detailed order addressing these and any other requirements.[12] Judgment reversed in part, vacated in part, and case remanded with direction. Rickman and Brown, JJ., concur.
