¶1concurring fully and specially.
¶2I concur with the majority opinion and all that is said there; I write separately to note that the application for interlocutory appeal was transferred to this court by the Georgia Supreme Court pursuant to the following order:
Applicants seek to invoke this Court’s equity jurisdiction to challenge the trial court’s order denying the motion for a change of venue in this action to set aside a deed and to establish an implied trust. However, because the propriety of equitable relief is not a substantive issue on appeal, this Court’s jurisdiction over equity cases is not invoked. See Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Heinemann, 268 Ga. 755, 756 (493 SE2d 132) (1997); see also Mabra v. Deutsche Bank & Trust Co., 277 Ga. App. 764, n. 1 (627 SE2d 849) (2006). Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the application be transferred to the Court of Appeals.
¶3As we observed in Foster v. Wilmington Plantation Owners Assn., 304 Ga. App. 239, 241 (696 SE2d 85) (2010), the Supreme Court has long recognized that “substantially identical phrases” contained in both the venue provisions of the Georgia Constitution and the provisions governing the appellate jurisdiction of the Georgia Supreme Court “should be interpreted harmoniously unless harmonious interpretation renders either provision unreasonable.” (Citations and footnote omitted.) Graham v. Tallent, 235 Ga. 47, 50 (218 SE2d 799) (1975) (“cases respecting title to land”).
¶4In the case before us, we reach the conclusion that a petition to set aside a deed and impose a trust is a suit in equity for purposes of venue, as provided in Ga. Const, of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. III. Again, I fully agree with that conclusion and the analysis supporting it. As the majority makes abundantly clear, the only issue on appeal here is whether this is a case in equity. That being so, however, I have great difficulty in grasping the reasoning underlying the order that transferred the case to us, because I am unable to understand how it can be that “the propriety of equitable relief is not a substantive issue on appeal.”