What did the Court of Appeals decide?

The court dismissed the City's appeal because the City did not use the required discretionary-appeal procedure for garnishment cases, so the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Who is affected by this decision?

The City (as the judgment creditor) and Popmenu (the garnishee) are directly affected; the trial court’s vacatur of the default judgment remains in place because the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

What happens next in the underlying case?

Because the appeal was dismissed, the trial court’s order vacating the default judgment and dismissing the garnishment without prejudice stands, and the City may be able to seek relief by following the correct discretionary-appeal procedure or by returning to the trial court.

Can the City try to appeal again?

Yes, the City can seek appellate review but must comply with OCGA § 5-6-35 by filing an application for a discretionary appeal where required.

City of Atlanta, as Successor to Thomas I. Puett v. Popmenu, Inc.

Docket A26A1662

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDismissed

Filed: May 4, 2026 · 2 days ago
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: A26A1662

Direct appeal from an order vacating a default judgment in a garnishment action and dismissing the case without prejudice.

Summary

The City of Atlanta, successor to a judgment creditor, appealed after the trial court vacated a default garnishment judgment against Popmenu, Inc., concluding Popmenu had not been properly served. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because appeals in garnishment cases must be pursued by discretionary-appeal application under OCGA § 5-6-35, and the City failed to follow that jurisdictional procedure. Because compliance with the discretionary-appeal process is jurisdictional, the appellate court lacked authority to decide the merits and granted Popmenu’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

Issues Decided

Whether the City of Atlanta properly invoked appellate jurisdiction by filing a direct appeal from an order in a garnishment action.
Whether appeals in garnishment cases must be initiated by an application for discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35.

Court's Reasoning

Under Georgia law, appeals in actions involving garnishment are subject to the discretionary-appeal procedure in OCGA § 5-6-35, and compliance with that procedure is jurisdictional. The City filed a direct appeal instead of an application for discretionary appeal, so the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Because jurisdiction was lacking, the court granted the garnishee’s motion to dismiss the appeal without reaching the underlying merits.

Authorities Cited

OCGA § 5-6-35
Maloy v. Ewing226 Ga. App. 490 (486 SE2d 708) (1997)
Hair Restoration Specialists v. State of Ga.360 Ga. App. 901 (862 SE2d 564) (2021)
Prison Health Servs. v. Ga. Dep’t of Admin. Servs.265 Ga. 810 (462 SE2d 601) (1995)

Parties

Appellant: City of Atlanta, as successor to Thomas I. Puett d/b/a Mews Development Company
Garnishee / Appellee: Popmenu, Inc.
Defendant: Bryan Castano
Judge: Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Key Dates

Court of Appeals order date: 2026-05-04

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult appellate counsel
Have counsel confirm whether the City can pursue discretionary appellate review and assist in preparing and filing the required application under OCGA § 5-6-35.
2
Consider trial-court remedies
Evaluate whether to seek relief in the trial court (e.g., refile garnishment or otherwise proceed) since the dismissal was without prejudice and the vacatur remains effective.
3
File discretionary-appeal application if appropriate
If appellate review is still desired, prepare and timely file an application for discretionary appeal with supporting grounds under the statutory procedure.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Court of Appeals decide?: The court dismissed the City's appeal because the City did not use the required discretionary-appeal procedure for garnishment cases, so the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Who is affected by this decision?: The City (as the judgment creditor) and Popmenu (the garnishee) are directly affected; the trial court’s vacatur of the default judgment remains in place because the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
What happens next in the underlying case?: Because the appeal was dismissed, the trial court’s order vacating the default judgment and dismissing the garnishment without prejudice stands, and the City may be able to seek relief by following the correct discretionary-appeal procedure or by returning to the trial court.
Can the City try to appeal again?: Yes, the City can seek appellate review but must comply with OCGA § 5-6-35 by filing an application for a discretionary appeal where required.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
May 04, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26A1662. CITY OF ATLANTA, AS SUCCESSOR TO THOMAS I. PUETT
v. POPMENU, INC.

The City of Atlanta, as successor in interest to Thomas I. Puett d/b/a Mews
Development Company, initiated this garnishment action against Bryan Castano,
naming Castano’s former employer, Popmenu, Inc. as garnishee. The trial court
entered a default judgment against Popmenu, after which Popmenu moved to set aside
the judgment. After a hearing, the trial court determined that the City failed to
properly serve Popmenu, so the court granted Popmenu’s motion, vacated the default
judgment, and dismissed the case without prejudice. The City then filed this direct
appeal. Popmenu has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that this Court lacks
jurisdiction. We agree.
Appeals in cases involving garnishment must be initiated by an application for
discretionary appeal, subject to exceptions not applicable here. See OCGA § 5-6-35
(a)(4), (b); Maloy v. Ewing, 226 Ga. App. 490, 491 (486 SE2d 708) (1997). See also
Prison Health Servs. v. Ga. Dep’t of Admin. Servs., 265 Ga. 810, 811 (1) (462 SE2d 601)
(1995) (an order is subject to the discretionary appeal procedure “if the underlying
subject matter of the appeal is one contained in OCGA § 5-6-35”). “Compliance with
the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Hair Restoration Specialists v.
State of Ga., 360 Ga. App. 901, 903 (862 SE2d 564) (2021) (citation and punctuation
omitted). Because the City failed to follow the required procedure, we lack jurisdiction
to consider this appeal. Accordingly, we hereby GRANT Popmenu’s motion to
dismiss and DISMISS this appeal.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
05/04/2026
I certify that the above is a true extract from
the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court
hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.