Danny Dunn v. Brian MacOn House - Discretionary Application Denied
Summary
The Court of Appeals of Georgia denied a discretionary application in the case of Danny Dunn v. Brian MacOn House. The court also fined Dunn $500 for filing frivolous appeals in related cases, directing the trial court to enter the fines as a money judgment.
What changed
The Court of Appeals of Georgia has denied a discretionary application filed by Danny Dunn in the case of Danny Dunn v. Brian MacOn House, docket number A26D0363. This denial is part of a pattern of extensive litigation by Dunn, who has filed over 25 actions related to his divorce and custody proceedings since 2021. The court also previously dismissed three direct appeals filed by Dunn challenging a prior dismissal order, fining him $500 in total for frivolous appeals and directing the trial court to enter these fines as a money judgment.
This decision reinforces the court's stance against frivolous litigation and highlights the potential financial penalties for parties who file such appeals. Legal professionals and litigants should be aware that repeated filing of meritless appeals can result in significant fines and the denial of further review. The court's actions serve as a warning against abusing the appellate process, particularly in cases involving prolonged and vexatious litigation.
What to do next
- Review internal procedures for identifying and addressing potentially frivolous appeals.
- Ensure all appellate filings have a clear legal basis and are not repetitive or vexatious.
Penalties
Fined $500 for filing frivolous appeals.
Source document (simplified)
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.
March 9, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Danny Dunn v. Brian MacOn House
Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: A26D0363
Disposition: Discretionary Application Denied
Disposition
Discretionary Application Denied
Combined Opinion
Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA,____________________
March 09, 2026
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A26D0361, A26D0363, A26D0369. DANNY DUNN v. BRIAN MACON
HOUSE et al. (three cases).
Since 2021, Danny Dunn has filed over 25 actions in this Court related either
directly or indirectly to his divorce and custody proceedings.1 His extreme
litigiousness below resulted in the recusal of the superior court judges in the Lookout
Mountain Judicial Circuit.
Dunn has filed multiple civil actions naming Chief Judge Brian House as a
defendant: a request for mandamus relief and a writ of prohibition (25CV00011); a
second petition for writ of prohibition (25CV00003); and a third petition for writ of
prohibition (25CV00023). Judge House appointed Senior Judge William McClain
(“the trial court”) to assist in those cases.
On March 7, 2025, the trial court dismissed all three actions in a single order.
Dunn filed discretionary applications in two of the cases, and his applications were
denied. Case Nos. A25D0311; A25D0312 (Mar. 26, 2025). Dunn nevertheless filed
three direct appeals, seeking to challenge the same March 7 order. We dismissed Case
No. A25A1639 based on Dunn’s failure to file a discretionary application. We
1
See A21D0284 (Apr. 21, 2021); A21D0285 (Apr. 21, 2021); A21D0331 (May
26, 2021); A22D0015 (Aug. 27, 2021); A23A0580 (Jun. 13, 2023); A24D0325 (May
10, 2024); A25D0186 (Jan 23, 2025); A25A1061 (Feb. 11, 2025); A25D0255 (Mar. 3,
2025); A25D0311 (Mar. 18, 2025); A25D0312 (Mar. 26, 2025); A25D0390 (May 29,
2025); A25A1638 (May 19, 2025); A25A1639 (May 19, 2025); A25A1640 (May 19,
2025); A25D0464 (Jul. 16, 2025); A25D0467 (Jul. 16, 2025); A26A0397 (Nov. 7,
2025); A26A0398 (Nov. 7, 2025); A25A1759 (Jun. 24, 2025); A26D0023 (Aug. 29,
2025); A26D0032 (Aug. 27, 2025); A26D0152 (Nov. 6, 2025); A26A0772 (pending).
dismissed Case Nos. A25A1638 and A25A1640 on res judicata grounds, and we fined
Dunn $250 in each case for a total of $500 for filing frivolous appeals. We directed the
trial court to enter the fines as a money judgment in favor of the defendants.
After receiving our order, but prior to receiving remittitur, the trial court
entered orders making our rulings the judgment of the court. Dunn filed discretionary
applications from these rulings, which we granted. Case Nos. A25D0464; A25D0467
(Jul. 16, 2025). After the direct appeals were docketed, we remanded the cases to the
trial court with direction to wait until “receipt of the remittiturs from these appeals”
before re-entering the money judgments for frivolous appeal penalties. Case Nos.
A26A0397; A26A0398 (Nov. 7, 2025). On February 13, 2026, the trial court re-
entered the money judgment based upon the remittiturs issued in Case Nos.
A25A1638 and A25A1640.2 Dunn then filed these three applications for discretionary
appeal.
In Case Nos. A26D0361 and A26D0363, Dunn argues, among other things, that
the trial court erred in re-entering the money judgments before remittitur issued in
Case Nos. A26A0397 and A26A0398. We agree. Accordingly, we hereby VACATE
the February 13, 2026 order and DIRECT the trial court to re-enter the money
judgments upon receipt of the remittiturs in Case Nos. A26A0397 and A26A0398.
Dunn’s applications in A26D0361 and A26D0363 are otherwise DENIED.
In Case No. A26D0369, Dunn purports to appeal the trial court’s order to the
extent it pertains to lower court case number 25CV00003. But the February 13 order
did not enter a money judgment in that lower court case. Rather, 25CV00003 was
dismissed by the trial court’s March 7, 2025 order, and we dismissed Dunn’s direct
appeal from this ruling. A25A1639 (May 19, 2025).
As we have already advised Dunn, “[t]he effect of the dismissal of the first
appeal from an appealable judgment was to affirm the judgment of the trial court there
2
We have not issued remittiturs in Case Nos. A26A0397 and A26A0398. Dunn
has filed petitions for certiorari in the Georgia Supreme Court with respect to those
cases, and this Court does not issue remittitur when a petition for certiorari has been
filed. See Court of Appeals Rule 39(a).
excepted to and the trial court was without authority to vacate or alter such prior
judgment which was res judicata between the parties.” Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v.
Bullington, 227 Ga. 485, 485 (2) (181 SE2d 495) (1971). Case No. 25CV00003 is thus
final, and Dunn is not entitled to another appeal in that case. Accordingly, Case No.
A26D0369 is hereby DISMISSED.
Furthermore, Dunn’s application for discretionary appeal in Case No.
A26D0369 is frivolous. Given Dunn’s history of filing meritless actions, we hereby
assess frivolous appeal penalties in the amount of $500 against Dunn in Case No.
A26D0369.3 The trial court is DIRECTED to enter a money judgment in this amount
in favor of the defendant in that action. Because no remittitur issues from an order
disposing of an application for discretionary appeal, this judgment may be entered
instanter.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
03/09/2026
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.
3
Under Court of Appeals Rule 7(e)(2), we are authorized to impose a penalty
of up to $10,000 against any party who files a direct appeal, application, or motion that
is determined to be frivolous.
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get State Courts alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when GA Court of Appeals Opinions publishes new changes.