The Court of Appeals of Georgia has dismissed an appeal filed by attorney Michael S. Howard and two affiliated law firms in a fraud case brought against them by Tawaine Hagans. The dismissal, issued on September 23, 2026, is significant as it highlights the procedural requirements necessary for appealing certain court decisions in Georgia.
The case began when Hagans filed a lawsuit in August 2025, accusing Howard and his firms of fraudulent misrepresentation, civil racketeering, and other allegations. The court's ruling affects the parties involved and clarifies the appeal process in cases involving anti-SLAPP motions, which are designed to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation.
Background
Tawaine Hagans initiated legal action against attorney Michael S. Howard and two law firms in August 2025. The lawsuit included serious allegations such as fraudulent misrepresentation, civil RICO, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and civil conspiracy. These claims suggest that Hagans believed he had been wronged in a significant manner, prompting him to seek legal remedies.
In response to the lawsuit, the defendants filed a motion to strike the complaint, arguing that it should be dismissed. This motion was filed under Georgia's anti-SLAPP statute, which aims to protect individuals from lawsuits that could chill free speech and public participation. However, in December 2025, the trial court denied the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion, allowing the case to proceed.
Following this, Hagans filed a motion for sanctions against the defendants, claiming that their anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. In January 2026, after a hearing, the court awarded attorney fees to Hagans but did not strike Howard's answer to the complaint. This led the defendants to file a notice of appeal, seeking to challenge the trial court's decisions.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by Howard and his firms. The court explained that a direct appeal is typically only allowed from a final judgment or order, meaning the case must be completely resolved in the lower court. According to the court, “the only judgments and orders entered under OCGA § 9-11-11.1 that are subject to direct appeal... are those denying a motion to dismiss or motion to strike.”
The court pointed out that since the action was still pending in the lower court, the defendants needed to follow specific procedures for an interlocutory appeal, which includes obtaining a certificate of immediate review. The court concluded that the appeal was dismissed because the defendants did not comply with these requirements.
Impact
This ruling is important as it reinforces the procedural rules governing appeals in Georgia. It clarifies that parties involved in ongoing litigation must adhere to specific guidelines when seeking to appeal decisions made by lower courts. The dismissal of the appeal means that the case against Howard and his firms will continue in the trial court, where the allegations will be addressed in full.
The ruling may also have broader implications for similar cases involving anti-SLAPP motions. It emphasizes the importance of following proper legal procedures and could deter other defendants from prematurely appealing decisions that are not final. This case serves as a reminder for litigants to be aware of the requirements for appeals to avoid unnecessary dismissals.
What's Next
As the appeal has been dismissed, the case will return to the trial court for further proceedings. It is unclear if the defendants will seek to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures or if they will continue to contest the allegations in the lower court. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or future actions by the parties involved.