From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Swanson v. Swanson

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 24, 1995
216 Ga. App. 406 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)

Opinion

A95A0669.

APPEAL DISMISSED JANUARY 3, 1995. RECONSIDERATION DENIED FEBRUARY 24, 1995. CERT. APPLIED FOR.

Discretionary appeal procedure. Whitfield Superior Court. Before Judge Boyett.

Reece Associates, I. Wayne Reece, Carl H. Anderson, Jr., for appellant.

Fisher Phillips, Griffin B. Bell, Jr., Coppedge, Goddard Leman, Warren N. Coppedge, Jr., McDonald, Kinnamon Thames, E. Crawford McDonald, Jr., for appellees.


ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

Defendant/Appellant Lawrence A. Swanson, Jr. argues this court erred in dismissing his appeal for failure to follow the discretionary appeals procedure because that procedure is only applicable to grants of attorney fees and litigation expenses pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14 and does not apply to denials of motions seeking such fees and expenses. That contention was decided adversely to defendant's position in Jones v. Padgett, 186 Ga. App. 362, 363 (2) ( 367 S.E.2d 88) (1988), in which this court held "[t]he `awards' which are made discretionary pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (10) are not otherwise limited by an amount of recovery and, therefore, an award which denies attorney's fees and expenses of litigation to a movant pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14 is as much discretionary as an award which grants such relief to the movant."

Motion for reconsideration denied.

APPEAL DISMISSED JANUARY 3, 1995 — RECONSIDERATION DENIED FEBRUARY 24, 1995 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.


Summaries of

Swanson v. Swanson

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 24, 1995
216 Ga. App. 406 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)
Case details for

Swanson v. Swanson

Case Details

Full title:SWANSON v. SWANSON et al

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Feb 24, 1995

Citations

216 Ga. App. 406 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)
454 S.E.2d 529

Citing Cases

Peachtree Tallulah, LLC v. Snapfinger Props. of Marietta

"[A]n application for [a discretionary] appeal is required when 'the underlying subject matter' of the appeal…

In re G. O.

We reasoned: "The 'awards' which are made discretionary pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (10) are not otherwise…