Ergin Tek v. Holly Park Square Apartments, LLC
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
Date FiledMay 20, 2026
DocketA26A1877
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA,____________________
May 20, 2026
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A26A1877. ERGIN TEK v. HOLLY PARK SQUARE APARTMENTS, LLC.
Holly Park Square Apartments, LLC filed an action to remove a mechanic’s
lien, for slander of title, and for sanctions against Ergin Tek and WFL USA, LLC. The
trial court granted Holly Park’s claims to remove and vacate the mechanics lien and
for slander, but reserved ruling on Holly Park’s request for damages and attorney fees.
Tek then filed this direct appeal from that order.1 We, however, lack jurisdiction.
As a general rule, a right of direct appeal lies from only a final judgment — that
is, where the case is no longer pending below. See OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(1); Yanes v.
Escobar, 362 Ga. App. 896, 897 (870 SE2d 506) (2022) (“an order is final and
appealable when 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”) (punctuation omitted). For a party to obtain appellate review when
the case is still pending below, there must be either an express determination by the
trial court that there is no just reason for delay under OCGA § 9-11-54(b) or
compliance with the interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34(b). Johnson
v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., 192 Ga. App. 628, 629 (385 SE2d 731) (1989). Where neither
code section is followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed. Id.
Here, the issue of damages has yet to be determined, and the trial court did not
1
For reasons not clear from the record, an identical order was entered in
another lower court case, which Tek also appealed. That appeal was dismissed as
premature. See Case No. A26A1636 (April 23, 2026).
direct an entry of judgment under OCGA § 9-11-54(b). Accordingly, the case remains
pending below, and Tek was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal
procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34(b), including obtaining a certificate of immediate
review from the trial court, in order to obtain appellate review. See Islamkhan v. Khan,
299 Ga. 548, 551(2) (787 SE2d 731) (2016). Tek’s failure to follow the interlocutory
appeal procedures deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby
DISMISSED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
05/20/2026
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.