Summary
The Supreme Court of Georgia held that an interlocutory appeal was timely despite an earlier defective application and that the trial court could vacate and reenter its interlocutory orders. On the merits, the court held that a judicial tax foreclosure sale was void because the property had already been conveyed to Livsey but was sold in the name of Livsey's grantor. The judgment denying summary judgment to the defendants was affirmed.
Holdings
- No. A defective attempt to seek interlocutory review pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34(b) does not have the effect of making the judgment appealed from res judicata of the issue.
- Yes. Summary judgment orders are interlocutory and remain within the breast of the court until final judgment, subject to revision at any time.
- Yes. When property is sold at a tax sale as the property of someone other than the actual title holder, the sale is void and passes no title.
Questions Presented
- Whether Ferdinand's application for interlocutory appeal was timely under OCGA § 5-6-34(b) after the trial court vacated and re-entered its order denying summary judgment.
- Whether a tax sale of property is void when the property is sold in the name of a person who was not the owner at the time of the sale.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (7)
- Powell v. City of Snellville, 275 Ga. 207, 563 S.E.2d 860 (2002)(followed)
- Glenn v. State, 271 Ga. 604, 523 S.E.2d 13 (1999)(discussed)
- International Indem. Co. v. Robinson, 231 Ga.App. 236, 498 S.E.2d 795 (1998)(overruled)
- Mitchell v. Oliver, 254 Ga. 112, 327 S.E.2d 216 (1985)(followed)
- Wade v. Whalen, 232 Ga.App. 765, 504 S.E.2d 456 (1998)(followed)
- Clarence L. Martin, P.C. v. Wallace, 248 Ga.App. 284, 546 S.E.2d 55 (2001)(followed)
- GE Capital Mtg. Svcs. v. Clack, 271 Ga. 82, 515 S.E.2d 619 (1999)(distinguished)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…