Opinion
A22A0373
01-31-2022
DELPIANO v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
Daniel Delpiano brought this appeal challenging a final judgment reforming a security deed and declaring that JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association has a superior interest in the subject property. JPMorgan has moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming that Delpiano lacks standing to challenge the final judgment because he has admitted under oath in a federal bankruptcy action that he does not own the subject property. See generally New Cingular Wireless v. Ga. Dept. of Revenue, 303 Ga. 468, 470 (1) (813 S.E.2d 388) (2018) ("the question of standing is a jurisdictional issue"). In response, Delpiano makes various allegations and claims that he has standing to challenge the judgment. But both parties acknowledge that their factual assertions and arguments on the issue of Delpiano's standing rely on facts that are not in the record and require the submission of new evidence. As we are a court for the correction of errors of law, Nelson v. State, 255 Ga.App. 315, 320 (4) (565 S.E.2d 551) (2002), the presentation of new evidence and development of a factual record on the issue of Delpiano's standing are not appropriate functions of this court, and instead are matters for the trial court. So we must "remand the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing and determination [of the issue] in the first instance[.]" Reado-Seck v. State, 346 Ga.App. 381, 386 (816 S.E.2d 355) (2018).
Accordingly, we hereby remand the case to the trial court with direction that it make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the issue of Delpiano's standing. We note that a "remand[] for findings of fact and conclusions of law on [such] a specific issue . . . does not permit the lower court to reopen the case for other purposes. Instead, the scope of the lower court's authority to act on remand is limited to the specific purpose of making the applicable findings and conclusions." Head v. Hill, 277 Ga. 255, 263 (II) (C) (587 S.E.2d 613) (2003) (citation and punctuation omitted), overruled in part on other grounds by Young v. State, 312 Ga. 71 (860 S.E.2d 746) (2021). We further note that "following the trial court's determination, the losing party may appeal the determination and any of the orders that were previously [raised in this] appeal." God's Hope Builders v. Mount Zion Baptist Church of Oxford, Georgia, 321 Ga.App. 435, 444 (741 S.E.2d 185) (2013). Accord Rivers v. K-Mart Corp., 321 Ga.App. 788, 790 (743 S.E.2d 464) (2013) (after remand with direction, "any appeal from trial court's subsequent order in this case may proceed directly to this [c]ourt").