Opinion
A21A1622
03-11-2022
JEROME v. NEPHRON CORPORATION.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
Appellee Nephron Corporation has moved to dismiss this granted discretionary appeal, arguing that because Appellant Phara Jerome's motion for new trial "merely attacked the Superior Court's legal conclusions and judgment, without alleging any factual errors contributing to the verdict," the motion was invalid and thus did not extend the time for filing an application for discretionary appeal.
Where a party timely files a valid motion for new trial following the entry of final judgment, the time for filing a notice of appeal or application for appeal is extended until "30 days after the entry of the order granting, overruling, or otherwise finally disposing of the motion." OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). If a motion for new trial is not the "proper means" by which to seek review of the trial court's action, however, "its filing will not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal." Turner v. Bynum, 255 Ga.App. 173, 175 (1) (564 S.E.2d 784) (2002). Critically, a motion for new trial is not a proper means by which to challenge a court's legal conclusions and judgment. See Bank South Mtg., Inc. v. Starr, 208 Ga.App. 19, 20 (429 S.E.2d 700) (1993).
This case became final on November 19, 2019, and Jerome thereafter filed a timely motion for new trial. Thus, the dispositive issue is whether Jerome's motion for new trial was valid such that the time for filing her application for discretionary appeal was extended pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). We conclude that it was not.
The final order in this case - the order on attorney's fees - was entered on November 19, 2019. See Edokpolor v. Grady Mem. Hosp. Corp., 302 Ga. 733, 734-735 (808 S.E.2d 653) (2017).
While Jerome's initial and amended motions for new trial invoked the general grounds and asserted that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence and against the weight of the evidence, these skeletal motions gave no indication of the factual basis for Jerome's arguments. Indeed, the amended motion did little more than attack the legal sufficiency of the superior court's order. "[C]hallenges to the judgment are not proper grounds for a motion for new trial." Bank South, 208 Ga.App. at 20 ("Although somewhat couched in the general grounds (e.g., the motion asserts that, 'the court's order is contrary to law,' etc.), [Appellant's] motion merely asserted arguments attacking the judgment of the trial court" and, thus, "was not a valid motion for new trial[.]"). And at the hearing on the motion for new trial, Jerome's arguments went exclusively to questions of law decided by the superior court and, more generally, sought reconsideration of her motion for directed verdict. A new trial is not necessary to correct these purported errors. See Hunter v. Will, 352 Ga.App. 479, 487 (3) (a) (833 S.E.2d 128) (2019) ("No new trial is necessary to correct a judgment or decree.") (citation and punctuation omitted).
In sum, because the record shows that Jerome sought the superior court's reconsideration of legal rulings, it was not a valid motion for a new trial and did not extend the time in which to file her application for discretionary review. See Bank South, 208 Ga.App. at 20; Houston County v. Harrell, 287 Ga. 162, 162 (695 S.E.2d 29) (2010) ("[A] motion for reconsideration does not extend the time in which an appeal may be filed."). Accordingly, Jerome's discretionary application was untimely, and this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal. Nephron's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.