Opinion
A21D0396
07-26-2021
TOORAK CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC v. JDZ INVESTMENTS,
JDZ Investments, LLC ("JDZ Investments") brought this lawsuit against Toorak Capital Partners, LLC ("Toorak") and Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust as Trustee for Toorak Repo Seller I Trust ("the Trust"). Subsequently, JDZ Investments filed a motion for default judgment, and Toorak and the Trust filed a motion to open default. On March 24, 2021, the trial court issued an order granting the motion for default judgment and denying the motion to open default. In that order, the trial court granted JDZ Investments default judgment as to liability only, and stated that a hearing on damages and equitable relief would be set at a later date.
Subsequently, Toorak and the Trust filed a motion for reconsideration and to set aside default judgment. On April 19, 2021, the trial court issued an order denying that motion. Toorak then filed the instant application for discretionary review of the April 19, 2021 order. We lack jurisdiction.
This Court granted Toorak an extension of time to file the instant application. Case No. A21E0045 (May 17, 2021). Toorak and the Trust previously filed an application for interlocutory review of the April 19, 2021 order, which this Court denied. Case No. A21I0207 (June 7, 2021).
A default judgment as to liability only is not a final judgment. See Cryomedics, Inc. v. Smith, 180 Ga.App. 336, 337-338 (349 S.E.2d 223) (1986); Holloway v. McMichael, 151 Ga.App. 802, 802-803 (261 S.E.2d 747) (1979). Here, the trial court has entered default judgment as to liability only, and the issue of damages and equitable relief remains pending below. Accordingly, Toorak was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal requirements, which include obtaining and providing a certificate of immediate review from the trial court, in order to appeal the April 19, 2021 order. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Holloway, 151 Ga.App. at 803. In addition, the discretionary appeal statute does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from complying with the additional requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 S.E.2d 213) (1996).
Because Toorak failed to comply with the interlocutory appeal requirements, we lack jurisdiction to consider this discretionary application, which is hereby DISMISSED.