Daniel David Delpiano v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, National Association ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Court of Appeals
    of the State of Georgia
    ATLANTA,____________________
    January 31, 2022
    The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
    A22A0373. DELPIANO v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL
    ASSOCIATION.
    Daniel Delpiano brought this appeal challenging a final judgment reforming
    a security deed and declaring that JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association has
    a superior interest in the subject property. JPMorgan has moved to dismiss the appeal,
    claiming that Delpiano lacks standing to challenge the final judgment because he has
    admitted under oath in a federal bankruptcy action that he does not own the subject
    property. See generally New Cingular Wireless v. Ga. Dept. of Revenue, 
    303 Ga. 468
    ,
    470 (1) (813 SE2d 388) (2018) (“the question of standing is a jurisdictional issue”).
    In response, Delpiano makes various allegations and claims that he has standing to
    challenge the judgment. But both parties acknowledge that their factual assertions and
    arguments on the issue of Delpiano’s standing rely on facts that are not in the record
    and require the submission of new evidence. As we are a court for the correction of
    errors of law, Nelson v. State, 
    255 Ga. App. 315
    , 320 (4) (565 SE2d 551) (2002), the
    presentation of new evidence and development of a factual record on the issue of
    Delpiano’s standing are not appropriate functions of this court, and instead are
    matters for the trial court. So we must “remand the case to the trial court for an
    evidentiary hearing and determination [of the issue] in the first instance[.]” Reado-
    Seck v. State, 
    346 Ga. App. 381
    , 386 (816 SE2d 355) (2018).
    Accordingly, we hereby remand the case to the trial court with direction that
    it make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the issue of
    Delpiano’s standing. We note that a “remand[] for findings of fact and conclusions
    of law on [such] a specific issue . . . does not permit the lower court to reopen the
    case for other purposes. Instead, the scope of the lower court’s authority to act on
    remand is limited to the specific purpose of making the applicable findings and
    conclusions.” Head v. Hill, 
    277 Ga. 255
    , 263 (II) (C) (587 SE2d 613) (2003) (citation
    and punctuation omitted), overruled in part on other grounds by Young v. State, 
    312 Ga. 71
     (860 SE2d 746) (2021). We further note that “following the trial court’s
    determination, the losing party may appeal the determination and any of the orders
    that were previously [raised in this] appeal.” God’s Hope Builders v. Mount Zion
    Baptist Church of Oxford, Georgia, 
    321 Ga. App. 435
    , 444 (741 SE2d 185) (2013).
    Accord Rivers v. K-Mart Corp., 
    321 Ga. App. 788
    , 790 (743 SE2d 464) (2013) (after
    remand with direction, “any appeal from trial court’s subsequent order in this case
    may proceed directly to this [c]ourt”).
    Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
    Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
    01/31/2022
    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.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A22A0373

Filed Date: 1/31/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/31/2022