BRANTLEY v. McMICHAEL , 295 Ga. 42 ( 2014 )

295 Ga. 42
FINAL COPY
S14A0254. BRANTLEY v. McMICHAEL.
MELTON, Justice.
On January 23, 2009, Darrell Brantley filed a Petition in the Superior
Court of Jasper County to probate a July 1, 2008 Will that had allegedly been
executed by Michael Jones (“Mr. Jones”), who died on December 9, 2008. The
Administrator of Mr. Jones’ estate, Hope Phillip McMichael, filed a Caveat to
Brantley’s Petition, which the Probate Court granted. Brantley appealed the
ruling in McMichael’s favor, and the case was transferred to the Superior Court
of Jasper County for de novo review. In the Superior Court, Brantley filed a
Motion For Summary Judgment, which was denied. McMichael then filed
another Caveat, and, following a November 14-15, 2011 jury trial, the jury ruled
in favor of McMichael. Brantley then filed a Motion for New Trial and a Motion
for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. Brantley failed to argue the
judgment n.o.v. issue at the hearing on his Motion for New Trial, and the
Motion for New Trial was granted on September 26, 2012. Thereafter, the
Motion for Judgment n.o.v. was argued on January 29, 2013, and it was denied
on February 4, 2013. This case was subsequently tried again to a jury, which
again found in favor of the Caveator, McMichael. Brantley now appeals, arguing
that the trial court erred in denying his Motion for Judgment n.o.v. relating to
the first trial of this case, and that the trial court erred in denying the Motion for
Summary Judgment that he filed before the first trial. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
In light of the specific procedural posture of this case, Brantley’s
arguments relating to the evidence considered by the Superior Court with
respect to both his Motion for Summary Judgment and his Motion for Judgment
n.o.v. are misplaced. Indeed, because Brantley’s Motion for New Trial was
granted with regard to the first trial of this case without Brantley having sought
or obtained a ruling on his Motion for Judgment n.o.v., and because Brantley’s
Motion for Summary Judgment had already been rendered irrelevant at that
point due to the first trial having been completed, any questions relating to the
Motions for Summary Judgment and Judgment n.o.v. relating to that first trial
were moot. As this Court has made clear, “[t]he grant of a new trial eliminates
everything which is pending in the old trial. When a new trial is granted, the
effect is to set aside all proceedings in the old trial.” (Emphasis supplied.)
2
Reagan v. Reagan, 221 Ga. 173, 174 (143 SE2d 736) (1965). As soon as
Brantley’s Motion for New trial was granted, all proceedings relating to that first
trial, which would necessarily include the pretrial Motion for Summary
Judgment and the Motion for Judgment n.o.v. from the first trial, were
eliminated. See id. In other words, just as the pretrial Motion for Summary
Judgment relating to the first trial became a nullilty following the grant of
Brantley’s Motion for New Trial, “[t]he pending motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict in the case at bar [also] became a nullity when [the
trial] court ordered that a new trial be had.” Id. Accordingly, Brantley’s attempt
to challenge the trial court’s rulings on these Motions relating to the first trial
of this case at this point in the proceedings is without merit.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Decided March 3, 2014 – Reconsideration denied April 10, 2014.
Wills. Jasper Superior Court. Before Judge Prior.
Thomas F. Jarriel, for appellant.
Martin L. Fierman, Stephen R. Morris, for appellee.
3