top of page
Writer's pictureSamuel A. Mullman

Court of Appeals of Georgia Offers Guidance on Motions for New Trial

The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently held that: (1) an order is not a final order, even it is so aptly titled, when a judge reserves the issues of attorney’s fees – or expenses – for a later date; and (2) all timely filed motions for a new trial shall have an oral hearing. Norrod v. Willingham, A21A0746. 2021 WL 3721143 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021).


O.C.G.A. § 5-5-40 (a) states, “[a]ll motions for new trial, except in extraordinary cases, shall be made within 30 days of the entry of the judgment on the verdict or entry of the judgment where the case was tried without a jury.”


The Superior Court Uniform Local Rules also provides:

[U]nless otherwise ordered by the court, that a motion for new trial in a civil action shall be decided by the trial court only after an oral hearing, even if the moving party does not request such a hearing. Moreover, ... if the trial court denies a motion for new trial in a civil case without issuing an order excepting the motion from this procedural requirement, and without holding the mandatory hearing, the error will not be deemed harmless on appeal; instead, the order denying the motion must be reversed and the case remanded with direction that the trial court comply with Rule 6.3 before disposing of the motion.

The Georgia Supreme Court has explained there is no final judgment, and a case remains pending in the trial court when that court has explicitly reserved issues related to costs and attorney fees for future judgment. Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 550 (1) (787 SE2d 731) (2016). That is unchanged even when the document is titled a “Final Order.” Id.; see also Norrod, 2021 WL 3721143 at *2.


Therefore, a September 30 filing of a motion for new trial by appellant was timely after a bench trial where the court entered a “Final Order” on August 5 and reserved the issue of attorney’s fees for a further date, which was ultimately decided on August 31. Norrod, 2021 WL 3721143 at *2. Likewise, because the motion was timely, the trial court erred by denying the motion two weeks after the motion was filed without holding a hearing on the merits. Id.

Recent Posts

See All

Comentarios


TAGS

bottom of page