MITCHELL et al.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. et al
Reconsideration denied July 28, 2014.
Equity. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Lee.
Smith Law, Louise N. Smith , William J. Smith, for appellants.
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, Jonathan E. Green , Linda S. Finley , Joshua N. Tropper, for appellees.
HUNSTEIN, Justice. All the Justices concur.
Appellants Richard and Deborah Mitchell appeal from the dismissal of their lawsuit against Appellees Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (" MERS" ), and their successors. We find that the trial court properly granted Appellees' motion to dismiss based on a bill of peace, which barred Appellant Richard Mitchell from filing future lawsuits without prior court approval. Therefore, we affirm.
In November 2005, Richard Mitchell (" Mitchell" ) obtained title to property located at 455 St. Regis Drive, Alpharetta, Georgia,
and executed a security deed in favor of MERS, who subsequently assigned the security deed to Wells Fargo as trustee. The property was [295 Ga. 621] foreclosed upon after Appellants became delinquent on their mortgage payments, and Wells Fargo purchased the property at a foreclosure sale on February 3, 2009. Since that time, Appellants admit that they have made numerous " dilatory filings," proceeding pro se, in state, federal, and bankruptcy courts.
In May 2010, Mitchell filed a complaint against Wells Fargo in Fulton County Superior Court in case number 2010-CV-185623. Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the complaint and moved for a bill of peace pursuant to OCGA § 23-3-110 against Mitchell as a measure to end Mitchell's " meritless filings" in state court. On July 21, 2011, the trial court issued an order granting Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because Mitchell had not properly served Wells Fargo. The court also granted Wells Fargo's motion for a bill of peace, finding that the records of Fulton County courts reflected " nothing less than repeated and contemptuous behavior in the courts of this State" and that the lengthy history of filings in federal court showed a pattern of behavior by Mitchell consistent with his state filings. The court concluded that pursuant to OCGA § 23-3-110, " a bill of peace [was] warranted, in order to stop [Mitchell's] abuse of the courts of Georgia."  The court permanently enjoined Mitchell from filing any pleading or complaint related to the foreclosure and eviction from the property at issue for a period of five years unless Mitchell first received written approval from the court. The court continued that if Mitchell did file such a complaint, Wells Fargo was under no duty to respond, and the complaint or any pleading would be subject to dismissal immediately. Mitchell moved to set aside the order granting the bill of peace, which the court denied orally during a hearing on February 19, 2013.
Meanwhile, on May 24, 2012, Appellants, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint to quiet title and for injunctive relief with regard to the property against Appellees in Fulton County Superior Court in case [295 Ga. 622] number 2012-CV-215444. Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing inter alia that Mitchell had failed to receive prior written court approval in violation of the bill of peace. Appellants did not respond. On October 18, 2012, the court granted Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss based on good cause, including the fact that Mitchell was barred from filing the complaint pursuant to the bill of peace. Thereafter, Appellants, represented by counsel, filed a motion to reconsider the order dismissing their complaint, a motion to set aside the dismissal order, and an emergency motion for stay of execution of writs of possession pending a ruling on Appellants' previously filed motions. On November 2, 2012, the court denied all three of Appellants' motions.
Appellants now appeal the dismissal of their complaint, contending that because the court dismissed Mitchell's complaint for lack of jurisdiction over Wells Fargo in case number 2010-CV-185623, the court had no jurisdiction over Wells Fargo to grant them the relief sought in the bill of peace. They assert that because the court lacked jurisdiction over Wells Fargo, the bill of peace was facially void and a nullity, and they may collaterally attack this void order in this appeal. Appellants thus assert that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint in case number 2012-CV-215444 by relying on a void bill of peace. Appellees respond that the bill of peace was not void because the court had jurisdiction over Mitchell, and therefore, that the dismissal based on the bill of peace was not in error.
We agree with Appellees. In case number 2010-CV-185623, Wells Fargo made a special appearance and thereby consented to the court's jurisdiction for the limited purpose of filing its motion for a bill of peace, while at the same time contesting the court's personal jurisdiction over it with respect to Mitchell's complaint. Additionally, the court had personal jurisdiction over Mitchell, and Appellants do not argue to the contrary. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction to issue the bill of peace, and it is not void on its face. See Nally v. Bartow County Grand Jurors, 280 Ga. ...