the court’s failure to hold such a hearing. Moreover, although the Estate does not maintain that it was not given an opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss, we reiterate that the motion was pending for over two-and-a-half months before the trial court issued its ruling, and so long as the party opposing the motion to dismiss has an opportunity to respond on the record, no hearing is required. See Mitchell v. 3280 Peachtree 1, LLC, 285 Ga. 576, 576 (1) (678 SE2d 880) (2009) (affirming the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss when it did not hold an oral hearing on the motion because the appellant was given “ample notice and opportunity to respond” to the motion such that his due process rights were not violated); Grant v. Kooby, 310 Ga. App. 483, 486 (713 SE2d 685) (2011) (<HOLDING>); Lemmons v. Newton, 269 Ga. App. 880, 882 (605
holding the trial court was without authority to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the amount of the judgment required the appellant to file an application for discretionary review holding that a motion to continue a hearing on a postjudgment motion was ineffective to extend the period for the trial court to rule on the motion absent the express consent of the parties holding that a hearing on a motion to dismiss an appeal is not required if the parties are given an opportunity to respond on the record holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion holding that the trial court did not err by failing to hold an oral hearing on a motion to dismiss an appeal because the appellant was afforded a full opportunity to respond to the motion