Opinion
A22D0424
06-24-2022
JOHN TAYLOR et al. v. BLACKSTONE RESIDENTIAL OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, LP.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. After the magistrate court entered a writ of possession in favor of the plaintiff Blackstone Residential Operating Partnership, LP, the defendants appealed to the superior court. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Blackstone on May 3, 2022, finding it was entitled to an immediate writ of possession. The defendants filed a "Motion for New Trial or Judgment Nothwithstanding the Verdict." The superior court denied the motion on June 6, 2022. The defendants then filed this application for discretionary appeal on June 13, 2022. Because the application is untimely from the order granting summary judgment, we lack jurisdiction.
Ordinarily, an application for discretionary review must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order sought to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). Under OCGA § 44-7-56, however, appeals in dispossessory actions must be filed within seven days of the date the judgment was entered. See Ray M. Wright, Inc. v. Jones, 239 Ga.App. 521, 522-523 (521 S.E.2d 456) (1999); see also Court of Appeals Rule 31 (a). The defendants' application here was filed on June 13, which was 41 days after the superior court issued its order granting summary judgment.
The filing of the defendants' motion for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict does not make the application timely. Where a motion for new trial is not a proper vehicle for review of a trial court's action, the motion has no validity and will not extend the time for filing an application for discretionary appeal. See Bigham v. Wright, 194 Ga.App. 194, 194 (390 S.E.2d 109) (1990); see also Pillow v. Seymour, 255 Ga. 683, 684 (341 S.E.2d 447) (1986). 1 We have held that a motion for new trial is not a proper method for challenging the grant of summary judgment. See Leader Nat. Ins. Co. v. Martin, 185 Ga.App. 27, 29 (1) (363 S.E.2d 281) (1987); see also Blackwell v. Sutton, 261 Ga. 284, 284 n. 1 (404 S.E.2d 114) (1991) ("A motion for new trial, by its very nature, would not lie to rectify an erroneous grant of summary judgment."). Likewise, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is not a proper vehicle for challenging the grant of summary judgment.
Because the defendants' motion for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict was not the appropriate vehicle for challenging the superior court's ruling, it did not operate to extend the time for filing an application for discretionary appeal. As no timely application was filed from the superior court's May 3 order granting summary judgment, we lack jurisdiction to consider this matter. Accordingly, this application is hereby DISMISSED. 2