What did the court decide?

The Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs' direct appeal because it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of attorney fees awarded under OCGA § 9-15-14 without a discretionary application.

Who is affected by this decision?

The plaintiffs (Whitney Garland and Thomas Nichols), who sought to directly appeal the fee award to Provectus Unum, LLC, are affected because their direct appeal was dismissed.

The dismissal means the plaintiffs must pursue the correct appellate route — a discretionary application to the Court of Appeals — if they wish to challenge the fee award.

Why was the appeal dismissed rather than the fee award reversed on the merits?

The court did not reach the merits because it found it lacked statutory jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal of the fee award; jurisdictional rules required a discretionary application instead.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Because the Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs' next procedural option is to file a discretionary application to the Court of Appeals challenging the fee award; other appellate routes are not available absent following the discretionary-procedure rules.

WHITNEY GARLAND v. PROVECTUS UNUM, LLC

Docket A26A1371

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDismissed

Filed: Apr 13, 2026 · 2 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: A26A1371

Direct appeal from a trial court order awarding attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 following voluntary dismissal of the plaintiffs' lawsuit

Summary

The Court of Appeals dismissed a direct appeal by plaintiffs Whitney Garland and Thomas Nichols from a trial-court order awarding attorney fees to defendant Provectus Unum, LLC. The plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed their contract lawsuit, but the trial court reopened the case because Provectus had a pending counterclaim for fees and then awarded fees under Georgia law. The Court of Appeals held it lacked jurisdiction because appeals of fee awards under OCGA § 9-15-14 must proceed by discretionary application under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(10), and the plaintiffs did not follow that procedure.

Issues Decided

Whether a direct appeal lies from a trial-court order awarding attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14
Whether the plaintiffs' failure to seek a discretionary application under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(10) deprives the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on statutory jurisdictional rules that require appeals from awards under OCGA § 9-15-14 to proceed by discretionary application under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(10). Precedent (including Capricorn Systems and Cook-Rose) confirms that an award of attorney fees under that statute is not subject to direct appeal. Because the plaintiffs failed to use the discretionary-application procedure, the Court of Appeals concluded it lacked jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Authorities Cited

OCGA § 9-15-14
OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(10)
Capricorn Systems, Inc. v. Godavarthy253 Ga. App. 840 (560 SE2d 730) (2002)
Cook-Rose v. Waffle House, Inc.320 Ga. 567 (910 SE2d 562) (2024)

Parties

Appellant: Whitney Garland
Appellant: Thomas Nichols
Appellee: Provectus Unum, LLC
Court: Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Key Dates

Court order date: 2026-04-13

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider filing a discretionary application
If the plaintiffs want appellate review of the fee award, they should timely file a discretionary application under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(10) as required for appeals of awards under OCGA § 9-15-14.
2
Consult appellate counsel
Engage an attorney experienced in Georgia appellate practice to ensure the discretionary application is timely, properly formatted, and presents the jurisdictional and substantive grounds for relief.
3
Preserve the record and deadlines
Confirm any remaining trial-court deadlines (e.g., for entry of final judgment or fee-collection steps) and preserve the trial record and transcripts needed to support the discretionary application.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs' direct appeal because it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of attorney fees awarded under OCGA § 9-15-14 without a discretionary application.
Who is affected by this decision?: The plaintiffs (Whitney Garland and Thomas Nichols), who sought to directly appeal the fee award to Provectus Unum, LLC, are affected because their direct appeal was dismissed.
What happens next?: The dismissal means the plaintiffs must pursue the correct appellate route — a discretionary application to the Court of Appeals — if they wish to challenge the fee award.
Why was the appeal dismissed rather than the fee award reversed on the merits?: The court did not reach the merits because it found it lacked statutory jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal of the fee award; jurisdictional rules required a discretionary application instead.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Because the Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs' next procedural option is to file a discretionary application to the Court of Appeals challenging the fee award; other appellate routes are not available absent following the discretionary-procedure rules.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

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.