Smith v. Millsap

902 S.E.2d 599

John Da Grosa SMITH et al.

v.Ryan MILLSAP et al.

Case No. S24C0302

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 29, 2024

Superior Court, Gwinnett County, Joseph Iannazzone, Judge

Jeffrey Thomas Holm, Blaska Holm LLC, 8565 Dunwoody Place, Suite A, Atlanta, Georgia 30350, for Appellant.

Ryan Millsap, 225 Valley Road NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30305, Aaron Matthew Clark, Gamble Clark LLP, 869 Virginia Circle NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30306, David Visser Houtsma, David Houtsma Law Firm, 7505 Brookwood Way, Cumming, Georgia 30041, for Appellee.

The Supreme Court today denied the petition for certiorari in this case.

All the Justices concur.

PETERSON, Presiding Justice, concurring.

John Smith’s cert petition raises an issue of possible gravity: whether the broad power of trial courts to order disputed funds to be paid into the registry of the court pending resolution of the dispute includes an equally broad power to disburse funds from the registry before the dispute has been resolved. But this is an issue of gravity warranting our review in this case only if Smith is correct that the Court of Appeals actually held that trial courts have such broad power. He is not.

Although some text in the Court of Appeals’s decision might be read as Smith does, such a reading requires taking that text out of the narrow context of the long and complex procedural posture of this ease. That makes all the difference. "[A] decision’s holding is limited to the factual context of the case being decided and the issues that context necessarily raises. Language that sounds like a holding — but actually exceeds the scope of the case’s factual context — is not a holding no matter how much it sounds like one." Schoicket v. State, 312 Ga. 825, 832 (1), 865 S.E.2d 170 (2021) (quoting Ga. Interlocal Risk Mgmt. Agency v. City of Sandy Springs, ...