Court Filings

The Court of Appeals dismissed Wayne Bridges’s application for discretionary review of a DeKalb County Magistrate Court dispossessory judgment because the court lacked jurisdiction. Georgia law requires that appeals from magistrate court dispossessory judgments be filed within seven days; Bridges filed his application 33 days after the magistrate court’s March 6, 2026 judgment. Because the statutory appeal period expired, the Court declined to transfer the matter to the state or superior court and dismissed the application as untimely.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Madelene Kinsler’s direct appeal from a superior court judgment favoring BW Links Owner, LLC in a dispossessory proceeding because Kinsler did not follow the mandatory discretionary-appeal procedure for superior-court reviews of magistrate-court orders. The court explained that under Georgia law an application for discretionary appeal is required and that compliance is jurisdictional, so the Court of Appeals lacked authority to consider the merits and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Keola Pasteure’s appeal of a trial-court summary judgment in favor of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company because the notice of appeal was filed more than eight months after the July 2025 order. Under Georgia law, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order. Because Pasteure did not file within that statutory period, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the defendants' direct appeal in a dispossessory (eviction) matter for lack of jurisdiction. Realistry Acquisitions obtained de novo judgment and a writ of possession in superior court after the magistrate court dismissed the case. The defendants filed post-judgment motions that were denied, then filed a notice of appeal 15 days after entry of the superior court judgment. The Court of Appeals found the appeal defective because the defendants should have used discretionary-appeal procedures for de novo superior-court review and because the notice of appeal was untimely under the seven-day deadline for dispossessory appeals.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Elizabeth Jordan’s pro se appeal from a September 11, 2025 trial-court order concerning contempt and attorney-fee rulings because Jordan was still represented by counsel when she filed her notice of appeal. The court explained that a litigant cannot both proceed pro se and be represented by an attorney, and that a counsel withdrawal must be ordered by the trial court before a pro se filing can be effective. Because Jordan’s pro se notice of appeal was therefore a nullity, the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Sonya Chandler Anderson's appeal for failure to prosecute. The appellant did not comply with the Court's notice of docketing or Court of Appeals Rule 23(a) requiring an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days of docketing, nor with a subsequent order to file those documents by April 27, 2026. Because the required filings were not received, the court deemed the appeal abandoned and ordered it dismissed under applicable Court of Appeals rules.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Sandra Capouch’s appeal from a trial court order that granted defendants’ motion to open default and motion to dismiss. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because Capouch filed her notice of appeal 34 days after the trial court’s October 29, 2025 order, but Georgia law requires a notice of appeal within 30 days. The court relied on the filing deadline statute and precedent holding timely filing is an absolute jurisdictional requirement, and it accepted the clerk’s endorsement as the operative filing date.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Nichelle Taylor’s direct appeal from the trial court’s denial of her motion to set aside a final judgment under OCGA § 9-11-60(d). The court held it lacked jurisdiction because appeals from denials of such motions must be pursued by application for a discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(8), (b), and Georgia precedent makes that process jurisdictional. Because Taylor filed a direct appeal instead of seeking discretionary review, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on April 28, 2026.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Ashlee Mock’s application for interlocutory review of the trial court’s order striking her answer in a civil forfeiture case because the application was filed late. The trial court struck Mock’s answer on January 7, 2026, and issued a certificate of immediate review on January 20, 2026. Mock filed her application in this Court 28 days after that certificate, but Georgia law requires an application be filed within ten days of the certificate. Because the timeliness requirement is jurisdictional, the court had to dismiss the untimely application.

The Court of Appeals dismissed a direct appeal by Robert Stafford and Icon Studios, LLC because the Court previously denied their application for discretionary appeal and that denial constituted an adjudication on the merits, barring a second direct appeal. The case arose after Heritage purchased property at foreclosure, obtained a writ of possession in magistrate court, and brought a dispossessory action; Icon and Stafford sought superior-court review but the superior court dismissed the petition and Stafford’s motion to join. The Court held that the prior denial precludes relitigation and thus the court lacks jurisdiction to hear this direct appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Gary D. James's appeal for failure to file his brief and enumerations of error by the deadline set under Court of Appeals Rule 23(a) and a subsequent court order. The court had given James until 4:30 P.M. on April 27, 2026, to file the required materials and warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Because James did not comply, the court dismissed the appeal and cited Tolbert v. Tolbert as authority supporting dismissal for noncompliance with appellate deadlines.

The Court of Appeals dismissed two consolidated direct appeals by Google, LLC and its employee Laura Revenko seeking review of a trial court order compelling them to comply with deposition notices and subpoenas in a divorce case. The court held it lacked jurisdiction because discovery orders in domestic relations cases listed in OCGA § 5-6-35 must be pursued by discretionary application, even if the order otherwise meets the collateral order criteria for immediacy. Because Google and Revenko did not file the required application for appeal, the appeals were dismissed.

The Court of Appeals dismissed an application for interlocutory appeal by guardians of a minor bitten by a dog because the trial court’s certificate of immediate review was untimely. After the trial court granted summary judgment for the homeowner (Jerry) on March 10, 2026, the court issued the required certificate only on April 2, 2026 — 23 days later. Because Georgia law requires the certificate be issued within ten days of the order and that requirement is jurisdictional, the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application. The plaintiffs must wait for a final judgment to pursue appeal rights.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Vernard K. Carter, Jr.'s appeal from a superior court writ of possession because the appeal was subject to discretionary-appeal procedures. The case began as a dispossessory action in magistrate court, was reviewed de novo by the superior court, and then appealed directly to this Court. The Court held it lacked jurisdiction because Carter did not follow the statutory discretionary-appeal process required for appeals from superior-court de novo reviews of magistrate-court rulings (OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(1) and controlling precedent). The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Saadi Orabi's appeal for failure to comply with docketing and briefing rules. The appellant did not respond to the notice of docketing or file the required enumeration of errors and brief within the time prescribed by Court of Appeals Rule 23(a) and Rule 13. The court had previously ordered those filings by February 20, 2026, but they were never filed, so the appeal was deemed abandoned and dismissed pursuant to Court of Appeals Rules 7 and 23(a).

The Court of Appeals dismissed Ricky R. Franklin’s direct appeal of a trial-court award of attorney fees to Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC and Wilmington Savings Fund Society because the appeal should have been pursued by filing an application for discretionary review under Georgia law. The trial court had awarded $14,354.50 in fees under OCGA § 9-15-14(b), and denied Franklin’s motions for a new trial and to set aside the fee award. The appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because Franklin did not follow the mandatory discretionary appeals procedure required for appeals of attorney-fee awards.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Ergin Tek’s direct appeal of a trial court order that removed a mechanic’s lien and found slander of title because the case was not final. The trial court reserved damages and attorney-fee issues for a later hearing, so the case remained pending. The Court explained that Tek needed either a final judgment, an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, or compliance with interlocutory appeal procedures (including a certificate of immediate review) to obtain appellate jurisdiction. Because Tek did not follow those procedures, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Allied Property Group, LLC’s application for interlocutory review as untimely. Allied sought review after the trial court dismissed all its claims and granted a certificate of immediate review on March 17, 2026. Georgia law requires an application to this Court within ten days of that certificate, but Allied filed on March 31, 2026—four days late. Because compliance with OCGA § 5-6-34(b) is jurisdictional, the Court lacked authority to consider the late application and dismissed it, leaving Allied to await final judgment to pursue an appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Tamera Montgomery’s appeal of a trial court order granting summary judgment to Milton Ruben Toyota of Augusta because Montgomery failed to file her appellant brief by the April 13, 2026 deadline and did not request an extension. The appeal had been docketed March 23, 2026, and under Court of Appeals Rule 23(a) the court dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order is procedural — the appellate court did not address the merits of the summary judgment ruling.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Reginald Charles Harvey’s appeal from various trial-court orders in a dispute with U.S. Nature-Invest Holdings, LLC because the notice of appeal was filed late. The underlying dispute began with the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment in January 2025 and multiple post-judgment motions by Harvey, the last of which the trial court denied on February 6, 2026. Harvey filed his notice of appeal on March 16, 2026 — 38 days after the February 6 order — and the Court of Appeals held it lacked jurisdiction because timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory under state law.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal in Phan v. Lee because appellants failed to file their enumerations of error and brief by the court-imposed deadline and did not request an extension. The appeal had been docketed March 6, 2026, and appellants were required to file within 20 days (by March 26, 2026). Citing Court of Appeals Rules 7 and 23(a) and precedent (Britton v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n), the court ordered dismissal on April 21, 2026 for noncompliance with filing requirements.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in Pimentel v. Morquecho because the appellant failed to file a required brief and enumerations of error by the court's deadline of April 13, 2026. The court issued a formal order on April 20, 2026, noting the missed filing and entered dismissal as the disposition. No opinion on the merits was reached because the procedural default (failure to file required appellate documents) warranted dismissal.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Trimen Enterprises, Inc.'s appeal seeking review of the trial court's refusal to allow an amended answer and the entry of default judgment against Trimen. The court held it lacked jurisdiction because the case remains pending below as other claims against a co-defendant were unresolved, and the trial court did not enter a certificate under OCGA § 9-11-54(b). Because Trimen did not follow the interlocutory-appeal procedures in OCGA § 5-6-34(b), including obtaining a certificate of immediate review, the appeal was premature and must be dismissed.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed a pro se appeal by Crandall Postell from a probate court order approving sale of estate real property because Postell remained represented by counsel when he filed the notice of appeal. The record contained no probate-court order allowing attorney Daniel Wilder to withdraw, and Georgia precedent bars a party from simultaneously being represented and proceeding pro se. Because a pro se notice filed while represented is a legal nullity, the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal by homeowner Chinh Vo challenging the denial of his motion to set aside a May 2025 final judgment in favor of Bellmoore Park Homeowners Association. The court held it lacked jurisdiction because appeals from denials of motions to set aside under OCGA § 9-11-60(d) must proceed by discretionary appeal application under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(8),(b). Because compliance with the discretionary-appeal procedure is jurisdictional, the court dismissed the direct appeal for failure to follow the required procedure.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Ed Hunter's appeal from the City of South Fulton because the appellant failed to comply with docketing notice and Court of Appeals Rule 23(a) by not filing an enumeration of errors and brief within the required time. The court had previously ordered those filings by April 6, 2026; they were still not filed as of the April 17, 2026 order. Relying on its procedural rules, the court deemed the appeal abandoned and entered dismissal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Scott Bolles’s appeal of a trial court award of attorney fees to GEICO Indemnity Company because the appellant failed to pursue the required discretionary-review procedure. Under Georgia law, orders granting fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 must be appealed by application for discretionary review; ordinary appeals are not permitted. Because Bolles did not follow that jurisdictional procedure, the Court concluded it lacked authority to hear the case and dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits of the fee award.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed an interlocutory application filed by Fulton County Sheriff Patrick Labat seeking review of a trial court order that denied his summary-judgment immunity defense in a lawsuit by Ralph Gershom challenging a sheriff's deed. The court concluded the superior-court order is directly appealable under new OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(15), effective July 1, 2025, so an interlocutory application was unnecessary. Because Sheriff Labat already filed a notice of appeal docketed as Case No. A26A1678, the Court dismissed the duplicative application as superfluous and directed further filings to proceed under the existing appeal number.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed McGarvey-Wilkins’s appeal from a Georgia State-Wide Business Court order denying her request to proceed as an indigent. The appellant repeatedly failed to file a compliant affidavit of indigency, pay the filing fee, or provide an adequate certificate of service despite the Court’s orders to do so. Because she did not file a timely initial brief and did not show good cause for the defaults required by Court of Appeals Rule 23(a), the Court dismissed the appeal for noncompliance with procedural rules.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Antique Fields’ application for discretionary review of a magistrate court writ of possession because the application was filed too late. The magistrate court entered judgment on 2026-02-27, and Antique Fields filed for review on 2026-03-24, which exceeded the seven-day deadline for filing under Georgia law. The Court explained that its jurisdiction to review magistrate court orders exists only after review by a state or superior court, and because the application was untimely and filing deadlines are jurisdictional, the Court could not transfer the matter and therefore dismissed the application.