Opinion
A24D0217
02-02-2024
SHOHEL MOMIN v. JEREMY ANDERSON et al.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
Based on the limited application materials, it appears that Pearl Garden Homes, LLC and Goodson, LLC brought this property dispute against Jeremy and Traci Anderson. The Andersons then filed a third-party complaint against Shohel Momin, RW Investments, LLC, and Richard Walker. Momin filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Momin then filed a motion seeking attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14. The trial court denied that motion, and Momin now seeks discretionary review. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
Generally, a party must follow the discretionary appeal procedures to appeal an order awarding or denying OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney fees. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (10). This action, however, involves multiple parties and claims, and the materials that Momin submitted with his application contain no indication that the trial court has adjudicated any claims other than the third-party claims against Momin. Thus, it appears that this action remains pending below and that the order Momin wishes to appeal is interlocutory. See Eidson v. Croutch, 337 Ga.App. 542, 543-544 (788 S.E.2d 129) (2016) (holding that an award of attorney fees issued before final judgment is interlocutory). Under these circumstances, Momin was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), including obtaining a certificate of immediate review, to pursue an appeal at this juncture. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 S.E.2d 213) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408 S.E.2d 103) (1991). Although Momin filed an application for discretionary appeal, as described in OCGA § 5-6-35, compliance with that procedure does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from complying with the additional requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey, 266 Ga. at 833; Eidson, 337 Ga.App. at 543. Momin's failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures deprives us of jurisdiction to consider this application, which is hereby DISMISSED.
Perhaps in recognition of this fact, Momin styled the application as one for interlocutory review. But without the certificate of immediate review required by OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), we docketed the application as one for discretionary review.