846, 847, 545 S.E.2d 31 (2001) ("A motion to clarify is not a motion authorized by Act, but there is no magic in the nomenclature used.
#Sample motion for reconsideration ocga trial#
Masters' "motion for clarification" was, in substance, a motion for reconsideration in which he requested that the trial court "amend" its December 2002 order, see Andrew L. Finding that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to decide Masters' motion for clarification as an out-of-term motion to reconsider the December 2002 order insufficient to extend the time to file timely a notice of appeal as to such order, we vacate the superior court's grant of Masters' motion for clarification and dismiss his appeal. Otherwise, Masters directly challenges the December 2002 order, arguing that jury questions remain as to his claim for OCGA § 13-6-11 attorney fees and, curiously, that such order was error in the event the trial court therein "meant" to sua sponte grant Clark summary judgment upon his (Masters') complaint for damages and OCGA § 13-6-11 attorney fees.
Pertinently, he argues that the December 2002 order lacked finality for failure to explicitly grant him summary judgment upon his claim for breach of contract, this denying him the right to elect his remedy, and denying him summary judgment on his claim for bad faith attorney fees upon the phrase, "at this stage" of the litigation. Masters appeals from the trial court's order entered on November 20, 2003, granting his motion for clarification by declaring its December 2002 order a final judgment and disposition of the case. On February 12, 2003, Masters filed his emergency motion for clarification of the December 2002 order, requesting that the superior court "amend" the order in that it was unclear and lacked finality *558 for not explicitly granting him summary judgment on his damages for breach of contract claim in addition to granting him summary judgment for specific performance of the purchase and sale agreement. Contemporaneously, the superior court denied Clark's motion for partial summary judgment for reasonable rents. On December 31, 2002, following a hearing, the superior court entered an order (the "December 2002 order") granting Masters summary judgment on his claim for specific performance of the purchase and sale agreement and denying him summary judgment on his claim for OCGA § 13-6-11 attorney fees. Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, Masters a motion for summary judgment upon his complaint and Clark a motion for partial summary judgment upon his counterclaim for recovery of reasonable rental value against Masters. Further, Clark contended that Masters had duped him into signing the contract by exploiting a confidential relationship between them and that owner financing under the agreement was unconscionable for his advanced age, nearly 74 at the time the lease was signed in 1990, and 85 when the instant litigation commenced. Clark timely answered and counterclaimed for equitable action to set aside the contract, unpaid rents after May 2000, and OCGA § 13-6-11 attorney fees. When Clark refused to do so, Masters filed his complaint for specific performance, damages for breach of contract, and bad faith attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11. On May 23, 2000, and June 26, 2000, Masters made written demands to close the sale of the Property. The parties amended the agreement for an additional term of five years on July 19, 1995. Under the agreement, Masters leased the Property from Clark for a period of five years and one month with an option to purchase the Property at any time during the term of the lease in accordance with the terms of a purchase and sale agreement attached to the lease. Clark entered into a lease agreement as to certain real property located at 3186 Buford Highway, Atlanta, Georgia. On June 21, 1990, plaintiff-appellant John W. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols & Clark, Carol V. *557 Dreger, Coyle, McClelland Bergman & Pieschel, Richard J. Reconsideration Denied September 13, 2004.
0 kommentar(er)
