Citifinancial Servs., Inc. v. Holland, 713 S.E.2d 678 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Citifinancial Servs., Inc. v. Holland, 713 S.E.2d 678 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
89 citation events (89 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Union General Hospital, Inc. v. Anna Giacomi (gactapp, 2026-03-23)
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 41 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Union General Hospital, Inc. v. Anna Giacomi
Ga. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
See Barnes v. Barnes, 361 Ga. App. 279 , 281 ( 864 SE2d 119 ) (2021) (dismissing direct appeal from trial court order that “specifically reserved ruling on the parties’ motions for attorney fees” and therefore “‘was not a final judgment’”); CitiFinancial Svcs. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 480-481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011) (concluding that we lacked jurisdiction over direct appeal from trial court order that did not resolve attorney fee motion).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Union General Hospital, Inc. v. Anna Giacomi
Ga. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
See Barnes v. Barnes, 361 Ga. App. 279 , 281 ( 864 SE2d 119 ) (2021) (dismissing direct appeal from trial court order that “specifically reserved ruling on the parties’ motions for attorney fees” and therefore “‘was not a final judgment’”); CitiFinancial Svcs. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 480-481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011) (concluding that we lacked jurisdiction over direct appeal from trial court order that did not resolve attorney fee motion).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Christopher Coelho v. Saul Wertzer
Ga. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
An order is considered a final judgment within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) where it leaves no issues remaining to be resolved, constitutes the court’s final ruling on the merits of the action, and leaves the parties with no further recourse in the trial court.3 Here, although the trial court order purportedly disposed of the Coelho’s counterclaim for declaratory judgment, the result is an interlocutory order that leaves pending issues regarding the import of the trial court’s decision on the purported 2 (Punctuation and citation omitted.) Bandy v. Elmo, 280 Ga. 221 ( 626 SE2d 5…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Drew Westen v. Laura Arkowitz Westen
Ga. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
CitiFinancial Svcs. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 480-481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In THE INTEREST OF N. O., CHILDREN (MOTHER)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Here, however, the order continuing the case did not decide temporary custody nor otherwise resolve all issues in this case, which remained pending before the juvenile court.1 See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) WILLIAM E. CALLAWAY, JR. v. LUCINDA DURHAM WILLARD (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), (b); CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnnie Marene Thomas v. Alvin Thomas
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
cited Cited as authority (rule) DAVID ANDREW LYNES v. A. DONALD WATERS, JR.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); In re Estate of Reece, 360 Ga. App. 364 , 365-366 ( 861 SE2d 169 ) (2021); CitiFinancial Servs. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
cited Cited as authority (rule) DALJEET SINGH v. ULTRA GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
See Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164, 165 ( 646 SE2d 469 ) (2007); CitiFinancial Svcs. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spencer Roderick Hyde v. Amber Michelle Hyde
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); see also Miller v. Miller, 288 Ga. 274, 282 (4) ( 705 SE2d 839 ) (2010) (holding that there was no final judgment in a divorce action until the reserved issue of attorney fees was resolved); CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Danyelle Howell Paul v. Scott Jason Paul
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); see also Miller v. Miller, 288 Ga. 274, 282 (4) ( 705 SE2d 839 ) (2010) (holding that there was no final judgment in a divorce action until the reserved issue of attorney fees was resolved); CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kevin A. Brown v. Virginia Palhof (Executrix of the Estate of Michael Scott Brown)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
CitiFinancial Services v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 480 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
cited Cited as authority (rule) BERNA MASON v. PERMANENT GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011); Chatham County Hosp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) GS CLEANTECH CORPORATION v. CANTOR COLBURN, LLP
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Pretermitting the validity of this contention as applied to this case, OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) authorizes direct appeals from “[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below. . . .” In this case, the order appealed is styled “Final Order Denying Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss Verified Petition for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.” But “‘[u]nder our rules of pleading, it is substance and not mere nomenclature that controls.’”8 “An order is considered a final judgment within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) where it leave…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) JONATHAN NORROD v. ASHTON WILLINGHAM F/K/A ASHTON NORROD
Ga. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
See also Gordon v. Abrahams, 330 Ga. App. 795, 798-799 (3) 4 (a) ( 769 SE2d 544 ) (2015) (there was no final judgment until the reserved issue of attorney fees was later resolved); CitiFinancial Svcs. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011) (trial court order that left claim for attorney fees pending was not a final judgment).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Phara Jerome v. Nephron Corporation
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
See Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164 ( 646 SE2d 469 ) (2007); CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lisa Hammons v. Georgia Title Source, LLC
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); CitiFinancial Svcs. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PRESTIGE NISSAN, INC. v. AMERICAN BANKING COMPANY D/B/A AMERIS BANK
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); CitiFinancial Svcs. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011) (dismissing appeal for failure to comply with interlocutory appeal procedure when trial court did not rule on plaintiff’s “claim for attorney fees and costs”); see also Sotter v. Stephens, 291 Ga. 79, 84 ( 727 SE2d 484 ) (2012) (holding that case was still pending below when trial court reserved the issue of fees under OCGA § 13-6- 11).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Travis Gearig v. Clark Gearig
Ga. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) authorizes direct appeals to be taken from “[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below[.]” An order is considered “a final judgment within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) where it leaves no issues remaining to be resolved, constitutes the court’s final ruling on the merits of the action, and leaves the parties with no further recourse in the trial court.” Citifinancial Svcs. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011); Caswell v. Caswell, 157 Ga. App. 710 ( 278 SE2d 452 ) (1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ernestine Starling v. Richard Starling
Ga. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
CitiFinancial Svcs. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SOTTER v. Stephens
Ga. · 2012 · confidence medium
Second, Judge Stephens reserved in the May 22, 2008 order the determination of the amount of attorney fees to be assessed against Maria White, and as “that claim remain [ed] pending in the trial court, the order is not a final judgment within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). [Cits.]” CitiFinancial Services v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited "see" Shadaha Anderson v. Larrentis Thomas (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Svcs. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 480-481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited "see" Gregory N. Crawford v. Aubrey Lee Smith (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011); Miller v. Miller, 288 Ga. 274, 282 (4) ( 705 SE2d 839 ) (2010) (holding that there was no final judgment in a divorce action until the reserved issue of attorney fees was resolved); Woodruff v. Choate, 334 Ga. App. 574, 576 (1) (a) ( 780 SE2d 25 ) (2015) (noting that an order reserving the issue of attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 and OCGA § 19-9-3 was not a final judgment because it did not adjudicate all the pending claims).
discussed Cited "see" Jesse Reid Horne v. Katherine Royce Horne (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011); Miller v. Miller, 288 Ga. 274, 282 (4) ( 705 SE2d 839 ) (2010) (holding that there was no final judgment in a divorce action until the reserved issue of attorney fees was resolved); Woodruff v. Choate, 334 Ga. App. 574, 576 (1) (a) ( 780 SE2d 25 ) (2015) (noting that an order reserving the issue of attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 and OCGA § 19-9-3 was not a final judgment because it did not adjudicate all the pending claims).
discussed Cited "see" Albert Howard v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Svcs. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011) (an order is considered a final judgment within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) where it leaves no issues to be resolved, constitutes the court’s final ruling on the merits of the action, and leaves the parties with no further recourse in the trial court).
discussed Cited "see" Allen Temple Development, Inc. v. Sixth Episcopal District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited "see" Anester Aaron v. Seretha Share Lovett (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited "see" Michael J. Hauf v. Natalya v. Hauf (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited "see" In the Interest of K. T., Children (Mother) (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited "see" Chan Hunt v. Dorothy Hunt Callahan (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited "see" Ellen Curiel Strauss F/K/A Ellen Curiel Francis v. Eddie Yeheskel Francis (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011); Miller v. 1 The mother has also filed an application for discretionary appeal of the superior court’s contempt order.
discussed Cited "see" Kari Samuelson, as Successor of the Estate of Alan Dickinson v. Vincent Dawson (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited "see" Anthony R. Hamby v. Earl Payne (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Services, Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited "see" Marvin B. Smith, III v. M. Delores Murphy (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Services, Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited "see" Stephen L. Self v. Anita C. Serrato (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011).
discussed Cited "see" Noreen Janeira v. George Janeira (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Services, Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011); compare Hill v. Buttram, We will grant a timely-filed discretionary application if the lower court’s order is subject to direct appeal.
discussed Cited "see" G. D. Evans & Associates, LLC v. 84 Lumber Company, L. P. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Services, Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011); compare Hill v. Buttram, 255 Ga. App. 123, 124 ( 564 SE2d 531 ) (2002) (reservation of OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney fee issue does not extend time 1 The contract allegedly breached contains an attorney fee clause. 2 The defendants directed the notice of appeal to the superior court, which transferred the matter to this Court.
discussed Cited "see" Gottfried A. Kappelmeier v. Pdq Property Management, Inc. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Svcs. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011) (concluding that appellant’s failure to comply with the requisite interlocutory appeal procedures deprived the court of jurisdiction, mandating dismissal of direct appeal).
discussed Cited "see" Kimberly Chatman v. David Eugene Palmer, Jr. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Services, Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011); compare Hill v. Buttram, 255 Ga. App. 123, 124 ( 564 SE2d 531 ) (2002) (reservation of OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney fee issue does not extend time for filing notice of appeal).
discussed Cited "see" Sharla Gaye Odom v. James Wendell Brown, Jr. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See CitiFinancial Services, Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011); compare Hill v. Buttram, 255 Ga. App. 123, 124 ( 564 SE2d 531 ) (2002) (reservation of OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney fee issue does not extend time for filing notice of appeal).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cameisha A. Barnes v. Jamar D. Barnes (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 ( 713 SE2d 678 ) (2011) (pending claim for attorney fees renders appeal interlocutory), with Hill v. Buttram, 255 Ga. App. 123, 124 ( 564 SE2d 531 ) (2002) (reservation of OCGA § 9- 15-14 attorney fees issue does not extend time for filing notice of appeal). 4 forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Citifinancial Services, Inc.
v.
Holland
A11A0950.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Jul 1, 2011.
713 S.E.2d 678
Pendergast & Jones, Howell A. Hall, for appellant., Victor Hawk, Reid V. Sanders, for appellee.
Mikell, Smith, Dillard.
Cited by 40 opinions  |  Published
Mikell, Judge.

In this case, we conclude that the trial court’s order releasing funds and awarding interest to appellee is not final and that appellant’s failure to comply with the requisite interlocutory appeal procedures deprives this Court of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. The relevant facts follow.

Ethel Mae Bunch Holland (“Holland”) was awarded certain property in Burke County on January 26, 2006, pursuant to her divorce from Alexander Morgan Holland, Jr. (“Alexander”). In 1998, Alexander executed a promissory note and security deed on the property in favor of CitiFinancial Services, Inc., but defaulted on the loan. CitiFinancial foreclosed on the property on March 7, 2006, selling it for $75,000. Because the debt was only $29,263.13, Citi-Financial received a surplus of $41,347.41. On August 25, 2009, an attorney for Alexander contacted CitiFinancial to demand payment of the surplus funds. On March 26, 2010, Holland filed a complaint against CitiFinancial under a conversion theory, claiming that she[*481] was entitled to the surplus funds because the underlying property had been awarded to her in the divorce. Holland also sought interest, attorney fees, and court costs. CitiFinancial filed an answer and a counterclaim for interpleader, seeking to pay the surplus funds into the registry of the court and to be dismissed from the action. Holland filed a motion asking the court to release the funds to her and award her interest. Following a hearing, the trial court issued an order awarding Holland the surplus funds, $41,347.41, plus four years and seven months of interest, for a total of $60,648.08. CitiFinancial appeals this order, challenging the award of interest. [1]

Decided July 1, 2011. Pendergast & Jones, Howell A. Hall, for appellant. Victor Hawk, Reid V. Sanders, for appellee.

Holland has moved to dismiss this appeal, arguing that we lack jurisdiction because the order from which CitiFinancial appeals is not final. [2] We agree. OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) authorizes direct appeals to be taken from “[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below.” An order is considered “a final judgment within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) where it leaves no issues remaining to be resolved, constitutes the court’s final ruling on the merits of the action, and leaves the parties with no further recourse in the trial court.” [3] The court ruled on the issues raised in Holland’s motion to release funds but did not rule on her claim for attorney fees and costs. As that claim remains pending in the trial court, the order is not a final judgment within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (l). [4] As CitiFinancial did not comply with the requisite interlocutory appeal procedures, [5] this appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Smith, P J., and Dillard, J., concur.
1

The trial court awarded prejudgment interest at the postjudgment rate. Compare OCGA § 7-4-2 (a) (1) (A) with OCGA § 7-4-12.

2

CitiFinancial did not respond to Holland’s motion to dismiss.

3

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Standridge v. Spiders, 263 Ga. App. 401, 403 (1) (587 SE2d 862) (2003).

4

See Northen v. Mary Anne Frolick & Assocs., 235 Ga. App. 804, 806 (1) (510 SE2d 122) (1998) (direct appeal dismissed, where plaintiffs claim for attorney fees in a contract action remained for adjudication after entry of judgment on all other counts). Accord Stump v. Young, 307 Ga. App. 583, 584 (705 SE2d 684) (2011) (appeal dismissed as premature where judgment reserved issues of attorney fees, costs, and interest).