Kreslyn Barron Odum v. Byron Brooks
Docket A26D0420
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Georgia
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Family
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- A26D0420
Application for discretionary appeal from denial of a motion under OCGA § 9-11-60(d) to set aside a trial-court order in an ongoing child custody and contempt action.
Summary
The Court of Appeals dismissed Kreslyn Barron Odum’s application for discretionary appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of her motion to set aside an order requiring her to pay half of a guardian ad litem’s fees. The court held it lacked jurisdiction because the underlying custody case remains pending and the order is interlocutory. Odum failed to follow interlocutory appeal procedures, including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court, so the discretionary-appeal process could not cure that jurisdictional defect.
Issues Decided
- Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear an application for discretionary appeal from the denial of an OCGA § 9-11-60(d) motion when the underlying child custody case remains pending.
- Whether compliance with the discretionary appeal statute excuses failure to follow interlocutory appeal procedures, including obtaining a certificate of immediate review under OCGA § 5-6-34(b).
Court's Reasoning
The court explained the order Odum sought to appeal was interlocutory because it did not resolve all issues in the ongoing custody case, so interlocutory appeal procedures applied. OCGA § 5-6-34(b) requires a certificate of immediate review from the trial court for interlocutory review, and Odum did not obtain one. Filing for discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35 does not waive or replace those interlocutory requirements, so the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.
Authorities Cited
- OCGA § 5-6-34(b)
- OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(8)
- OCGA § 5-6-35(j)
- OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(11)
- Boyd v. State191 Ga. App. 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989)
- Bailey v. Bailey266 Ga. 832 (471 SE2d 213) (1996)
- OCGA § 9-11-60(d)
Parties
- Appellant
- Kreslyn Barron Odum
- Appellee
- Byron Brooks
- Judge
- Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Key Dates
- Trial court temporary order transferring custody
- 2024-09-01
- Trial court set-aside order and temporary custody order
- 2025-09-18
- Order requiring Odum to pay half of prior GAL fees
- 2025-11-05
- Court of Appeals dismissal order
- 2026-04-13
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Request certificate of immediate review from trial court
File a motion in the trial court seeking the interlocutory certificate required under OCGA § 5-6-34(b) to pursue appellate review now.
- 2
Consider appeal after final judgment
If interlocutory certification is not granted, preserve objections and await a final order resolving all issues, then file a timely direct appeal.
- 3
Consult family-law counsel
Speak with an attorney about the best procedural route and to prepare any necessary motions or appellate filings promptly.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the Court of Appeals decide?
- The court dismissed Odum’s application for discretionary appeal because it lacked jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order without the required interlocutory appeal procedures.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Primarily the parties in the custody dispute — Odum and Brooks — because Odum cannot obtain appellate review of the fee order at this time.
- What happens next in the case?
- The trial court proceedings continue; Odum may seek interlocutory certification from the trial court or pursue review after a final order resolves all issues.
- Why was the appeal dismissed instead of decided on the merits?
- Because the appellate court determined it lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits without the interlocutory certificate required by statute.
- Can Odum try to appeal again?
- Yes; she can ask the trial court for a certificate of immediate review under OCGA § 5-6-34(b) or wait to appeal after a final order is entered.
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,____________________
April 13, 2026
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A26D0420. KRESLYN BARRON ODUM v. BYRON BROOKS.
In this child custody modification and contempt action, the trial court entered
a temporary order in September 2024, in which, among other things, it transferred
physical custody of a minor child from the child’s mother, Kreslyn Odum, to the
child’s father, Byron Brooks. In an order entered on September 18, 2025, the trial
court sua sponte set aside all prior orders entered by another judge in the case,
concluded that Odum’s OCGA § 9-11-60(d) motion to set aside those orders was
thereby rendered moot, and further ruled that, pending a temporary hearing, the child
will remain with Brooks. Odum has filed an appeal from that order, which is currently
pending in this Court. See Case No. A26A1043.1
On November 5, 2025, the trial court entered an order requiring Odum to pay
her half of the prior guardian ad litem’s fees.2 Odum filed a motion to set aside the
order pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60(d). The trial court denied the motion, and Odum
filed this timely application for discretionary appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
1
Odum had filed an application for discretionary appeal, which was granted
under OCGA § 5-6-35(j) because the order was directly appealable pursuant to OCGA
§ 5-6-34(a)(11) (“[a]ll judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing
to change, or modifying child custody or holding or declining to hold persons in
contempt of such child custody judgment or orders.”). See Case No. A26D0153 (Nov.
5, 2025).
2
On September 18, 2025, and at the time the trial court set aside all prior
orders, the trial court also entered an order appointing a new guardian at litem.
Ordinarily, an appeal from the denial of a motion to set aside under OCGA §
9-11-60(d) requires compliance with the discretionary appeal statute. See OCGA §
5-6-35(a)(8). However, because this case remains pending in the trial court, the order
Odum seeks to appeal is a non-final order which did not resolve all issues in the case.
Consequently, she was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures
— including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court — to
obtain appellate review at this juncture. See OCGA § 5-6-34(b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga.
App. 435, 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989).
And although Odum filed an application for discretionary appeal, compliance
with that procedure does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an
interlocutory order from complying with the additional requirements of OCGA §
5-6-34(b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832–33 (471 SE2d 213) (1996).
Accordingly, Odum’s failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures
deprives us of jurisdiction over this application for discretionary appeal, which is
hereby DISMISSED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
04/13/2026
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.