David Ingle v. Jeffery Casey Joyner
Docket A26I0199
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Georgia
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- A26I0199
Application for interlocutory review of a trial court order partially denying a motion for reconsideration following denial of summary judgment.
Summary
The Court of Appeals dismissed David Ingle’s application for interlocutory review of the trial court’s February 26, 2026 order because the trial court’s certificate of immediate review was issued 41 days after entry of the underlying order, far beyond the ten-day statutory deadline. The court explained that the ten-day period begins on the entry of the order (when it is filed with the clerk), not on later service, so delayed service does not extend the deadline. The court noted the trial court could vacate and reinstate the order and certificate to allow another interlocutory appeal opportunity.
Issues Decided
- Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory application when the trial court's certificate of immediate review was issued more than ten days after entry of the underlying order
- Whether delayed service of the underlying order tolls the ten-day statutory deadline for certifying an order for immediate review under OCGA § 5-6-34(b)
Court's Reasoning
OCGA § 5-6-34(b) requires a trial court to certify an order for immediate review within ten days of the order's entry, and that is a jurisdictional prerequisite. The court relied on precedent holding that 'entry' occurs when the judgment is filed with the clerk, so delayed service on the parties does not extend the ten-day window. Because the certificate here was issued 41 days after entry, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.
Authorities Cited
- OCGA § 5-6-34(b)
- Turner v. Harper231 Ga. 175 (1973)
- Von Waldner v. Baldwin/Cheshire, Inc.133 Ga. App. 23 (1974)
- Canoeside Properties v. Livsey277 Ga. 425 (2003)
Parties
- Appellant
- David Ingle
- Appellee
- Jeffery Casey Joyner
- Judge
- Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Key Dates
- Underlying order entered
- 2026-02-26
- Order served on parties (trial court's note)
- 2026-03-26
- Trial court certified order for immediate review
- 2026-04-08
- Court of Appeals decision
- 2026-05-05
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider motion to vacate and reinstate in trial court
Ask the trial court to vacate and then reinstate the February 26 order and to reissue a certificate of immediate review so the ten-day certification period will begin anew.
- 2
Consult appellate counsel
Talk with an appeals lawyer promptly to prepare any new certificate request and, if reinstated, to file an interlocutory application within the required time.
- 3
Preserve record and monitor deadlines
Ensure all filings are timely and that you have proof of entry dates, because the ten-day jurisdictional deadline runs from the clerk's entry date, not service.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the Court of Appeals decide?
- The court dismissed the interlocutory application because the trial court's certificate was issued more than ten days after the order's entry, so the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Primarily the applicant, David Ingle, because his attempt to obtain immediate appellate review failed; the underlying trial-court order remains in place for now.
- Does delayed service of the order change the deadline to certify for immediate review?
- No. The court held the ten-day period runs from the date the order is entered with the clerk, and delayed service does not extend that deadline.
- Can this be fixed so Ingle can seek interlocutory review?
- Yes. The trial court may vacate and then reinstate the underlying order and reissue a certificate of immediate review, which would restart the certification timing and allow a new interlocutory application.
- Can this decision be appealed?
- This order dismissing the interlocutory application is a decision of the Court of Appeals; further appellate options are limited on the jurisdictional dismissal itself, but the parties can pursue the remedy suggested (vacate and reinstate) in the trial court.
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 05, 2026
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A26I0199. DAVID INGLE v. JEFFERY CASEY JOYNER.
On February 26, 2026, the trial court entered an order partially denying
defendant David Ingle’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s previous denial of
his motion for summary judgment. On April 8, 2026, the court certified its February
26 order for immediate review. Ingle then filed this application for interlocutory
review. We lack jurisdiction.
A party may seek interlocutory review only if the trial court “certifies within ten
days of entry thereof that the order, decision, or judgment is of such importance to the
case that immediate review should be had.” OCGA § 5-6-34(b). A timely certificate
of immediate review is a jurisdictional requirement. See Von Waldner v.
Baldwin/Cheshire, Inc., 133 Ga. App. 23, 24(2) (209 SE2d 715) (1974). If the certificate
is not entered within the ten-day period, it is untimely, and the party seeking review
generally must wait until final judgment to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34(b); Duke v.
State, 306 Ga. 171, 178(3)(a) (829 SE2d 348) (2019); Turner v. Harper, 231 Ga. 175,
176 (200 SE2d 748) (1973).
Here, because the certificate of immediate review was entered 41 days after
entry of the underlying order, we are constrained to conclude that we lack jurisdiction.
The trial court noted in the certificate that the underlying order was not served on the
parties until March 26, 2026. However, the ten-day deadline established in OCGA
§ 5-6-34(b) begins to runs upon the “entry” of the underlying order, and “the filing
with the clerk of a judgment, signed by the judge, constitutes the ‘entry’ of the
judgment within the meaning of the Appellate Practice Act.” Turner, 231 Ga. at 176.
Thus, any delayed service of the underlying order does not toll the ten-day deadline.
We also note that 13 days passed between March 26 and April 8, 2026.
For the foregoing reasons, this application is hereby DISMISSED. However,
we note that in order to give Ingle a second opportunity to pursue an interlocutory
appeal, the trial court may vacate and reinstate both the underlying order and the
certificate. See Canoeside Properties v. Livsey, 277 Ga. 425, 426-427(1) (589 SE2d 116)
(2003); Piedmont Hosp. v. D. M., 335 Ga. App. 442, 444(1) (779 SE2d 36) (2015).
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
05/05/2026
I cer t ify 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.