Whitney Garland v. Provectus Unum, LLC - Dismissed
Summary
The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed appeal No. A26A1371 for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs Whitney Garland and Thomas Nichols appealed directly from a trial court order awarding attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 following their voluntary dismissal of a construction contract dispute. The Court held that appeals from attorney fee awards under this statute must proceed by discretionary application pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(10), not direct appeal. Plaintiffs' failure to follow the required procedural path deprived the appellate court of jurisdiction.
What changed
The Court of Appeals dismissed the direct appeal because plaintiffs improperly bypassed Georgia's mandatory discretionary appeal process. Under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(10), appeals from orders awarding attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 must be initiated by discretionary application, not direct appeal. The Court applied well-established precedent holding that failure to comply with this procedural requirement deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction.
Legal professionals and litigants in Georgia should be aware that direct appeals from attorney fee awards are not permitted. Any party seeking to appeal such an award must first file a discretionary application with the appropriate appellate court. This procedural ruling reinforces the mandatory nature of Georgia's appellate procedure rules and serves as a reminder that substantive rights can be forfeited through procedural missteps.
What to do next
- Litigants in Georgia must use discretionary application procedures when appealing attorney fee awards under OCGA § 9-15-14
- Legal professionals should ensure compliance with OCGA § 5-6-35 procedural requirements for attorney fee appeals
Archived snapshot
Apr 13, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
WHITNEY GARLAND v. PROVECTUS UNUM, LLC
Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: A26A1371
Disposition: Dismissed
Disposition
Dismissed
Combined Opinion
Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA,____________________
April 13, 2026
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A26A1371. WHITNEY GARLAND et al v. PROVECTUS UNUM, LLC.
Plaintiffs Whitney Garland and Thomas Nichols sued Provectus Unum, LLC
asserting claims arising out of Provectus’s alleged breach of a construction contract.
After Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit without prejudice, the trial court
entered an order reopening the case on the docket, citing Provectus’s pending
counterclaim for attorney fees. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the
counterclaim, and Provectus filed a motion seeking an award of attorney fees under
OCGA § 9-15-14 and OCGA § 9-11-68. After conducting a hearing, the trial court
entered an order denying Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the counterclaim and awarding
attorney fees to Provectus pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14(b). Plaintiffs then filed this
direct appeal from the trial court’s order awarding attorney fees.
We lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Appeals from orders awarding attorney
fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 must be made by discretionary application rather than
direct appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(10); Capricorn Sys., Inc. v. Godavarthy, 253 Ga. App.
840, 842 (560 SE2d 730) (2002). See Cook-Rose v. Waffle House, Inc., 320 Ga. 567,
569 (2) (910 SE2d 562) (2024) (noting that appeal from trial court’s order awarding
attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 following voluntary dismissal of lawsuit required
a discretionary application under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(10)).
Because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the discretionary appeal procedure, we
are deprived of jurisdiction. See Low v. Swift, 367 Ga. App. 874, 876 (889 SE2d 122)
(2023). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
04/13/2026
I certify that the above is a true extract from
the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court
hereto affixed the day and year last above written.
, Clerk.
Named provisions
Related changes
Get daily alerts for GA Court of Appeals Opinions
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from GA Court of Appeals.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when GA Court of Appeals Opinions publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.