dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the transfer of this case to the Court of Appeals because I believe this appeal falls within this Court’s appellate jurisdiction of “[cjases involving title to land.” 1983 Ga. Const., Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. Ill (1). By relying on Smith v. Hobbs, 259 Ga. 88 (380 SE2d 53) (1989), to transfer this case, the majority perpetuates the erroneous application to a “title-to-land” appeal of a principle governing an appeal of an “equity” case; the majority resurrects a holding that has not been cited in the 22 years of its existence and which, in practice, has been implicitly overruled; and the majority fails to recognize that a trial court’s dismissal of an appeal does not modify this Court’s appellate jurisdiction, but affects only the order in which this Court addresses the enumerated errors of an appeal that fall within its jurisdiction.
This Court has construed the constitutional provision giving this Court appellate jurisdiction of title-to-land cases as encompassing “actions at law, such as ejectment and statutory substitutes, in which the plaintiff asserts a presently enforceable legal title against the possession of the defendant for the purpose of recovering the land.” Graham v. Tallent, 235 Ga. 47, 49 (218 SE2d 799) (1975), quoting Bond v. Ray, 207 Ga. 559, 561 (63 SE2d 399) (1951). Under the Graham construction of the constitutional provision, this case is a title-to-land case because the Boyds filed suit against JohnGalt for trespass and ejectment, disputing JohnGalt Holdings’ record ownership of the property. Therefore, the appeal falls within this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Compare Arrington v. Reynolds, 274 Ga. 114 (549 SE2d 401) (2001).
Rather than applying Graham v. Tallent to this appeal, the majority, citing Smith v. Hobbs, supra, 259 Ga. 88, holds that this Court’s title-to-land appellate jurisdiction is not dependent upon whether the lawsuit is one in which the plaintiff asserts a presently-enforceable legal title but, rather, is dependent upon “the issues on appeal.” Because the appeal is from the trial court’s dismissal of the appeal and “there is no title to land claim presented by this appeal for this Court to resolve[,]” the majority concludes the appeal is not within this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. However, in so doing, the majority has confused this Court’s jurisdiction of cases involving title to land with its jurisdiction of equity cases. In Beauchamp v. Knight, 261 Ga. 608 (409 SE2d 208) (1991), this Court construed the constitutional provision giving this Court appellate jurisdiction over “[a]ll equity cases” (Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. Ill (2)) as covering “those [cases] in which a substantive issue on appeal involves the legality or propriety of equitable relief sought in the superior court. ...” (emphasis supplied). In Lamar County v. E.T. Carlyle Co., 277 Ga. 690 (1) (594 SE2d 335) (2004), we explained that this Court’s *661appellate jurisdiction of equity cases is dependent upon the appeal containing a certain type of issue, i.e., one questioning the legality or propriety of equitable relief; however, cases involving title to land and, as pointed out in Lamar County, cases involving extraordinary remedies, have not been construed in such a limiting fashion.2
I question the efficacy of Smith v. Hobbs, the case relied upon by the majority. It, like the case before us, is a title-to-land case in which the appeal was from the trial court’s order dismissing the appeal. However, instead of acknowledging the construction in Graham v. Tallent of the constitutional provision governing appellate jurisdiction of title-to-land cases, the Hobbs Court applied the holding it had recently made in a case involving this Court’s appellate jurisdiction over equity cases. See Hatfield v. Great American Mgmt. & Investment, 258 Ga. 640 (373 SE2d 367) (1988). The holding in Smith v. Hobbs lay dormant for nearly 22 years until its resurrection by the majority. In that time, this Court construed the constitutional provision governing its appellate jurisdiction over equity cases in Beauchamp v. Knight, supra, 261 Ga. 608, and has routinely retained jurisdiction of an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of an appeal in a title-to-land case. See, e.g., Mitchell v. 3280 Peachtree 1, 285 Ga. 576 (678 SE2d 880) (2009); Kelly v. Dawson County, 282 Ga. 189 (646 SE2d 53) (2007); and Pirkle v. Bell, 270 Ga. 438 (510 SE2d 814) (1999). The trial court’s dismissal of an appeal does not affect this Court’s appellate jurisdiction; it only affects the order in which the appellate court addresses the enumerated errors. See Propst v. Morgan, 288 Ga. 862, 863 (708 SE2d 291) (2011) (addressing the merits of a party’s recusal motion against the trial judge is an exception to the general rule that an appellate court decides whether the trial court properly dismissed an appeal before it addresses the merits of the appeal); Durden v. Griffin, 270 Ga. 293, 294 (509 SE2d 54) (1998).
In light of this Court’s construction in Beauchamp of the constitutional basis for its appellate jurisdiction over equity cases and its retention of jurisdiction over appeals in title-to-land cases *662from the trial court’s dismissal of the appeal, I would return Smith v. Hobbs to its former place of rest by expressly overruling it. Because I believe this appeal falls within this Court’s appellate jurisdiction over all cases involving title to land, I dissent from the transfer of this appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Decided March 5, 2012. Francis X. Moore, for appellants. Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco, Ned Blumenthal, Schreeder, Wheeler & Flint, David H. Flint, J. Carole Thompson Hord, for appellees.I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Hunstein and Presiding Justice Carley join this dissent.
Lamar County was a case that invoked this Court’s appellate jurisdiction over “[a]ll cases involving extraordinary remedies.” 1983 Ga. Const., Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. Ill (5). This Court’s appellate jurisdiction of “[a]ll eases involving wills” (Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. Ill (3)) has been construed to embrace only “those cases in which the will’s validity or meaning is in question.” In re Estate of Lott, 251 Ga. 461 (306 SE2d 920) (1983). Jurisdiction of “[a]ll habeas corpus cases” (Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. Ill (4)) has been construed to cover only those cases brought pursuant to OCGA § 9-14-1 et seq., in the county of incarceration and OCGA § 9-14-40 et seq. See generally Patterson v. Earp, 257 Ga. 729 (363 SE2d 248) (1988) and Alvarez v. Sills, 258 Ga. 18 (365 SE2d 107) (1988). “All divorce and alimony cases” (Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. Ill (6)) has been construed to cover all cases in which a final judgment of divorce or an order for child support or alimony has been entered. Gates v. Gates, 277 Ga. 175, 175-176 (587 SE2d 32) (2003).