Christopher M. Hunt Sr v. Lee Investment Trust

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: July 17, 2025
• Docket: A25I0265
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ July 17, 2025

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25I0265. CHRISTOPHER M. HUNT SR. v. LEE INVESTMENT TRUST et al.

On April 14, 2025, in this dispute about a trust, the probate court issued several orders resolving various pending motions.1 Christopher Hunt, Sr., thereafter sought a certificate of immediate review, which the trial court denied, and he filed an application for interlocutory appeal in the Supreme Court of Georgia, which transferred the matter to this Court. See Case No. S25I1058 (May 21, 2025). We lack jurisdiction. Based on the application materials, it appears that the trust dispute is still pending in the probate court. Thus, Christopher Hunt, Sr., was required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures — including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court — in order to appeal from the April 14, 2025 orders. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Eidson v. Croutch, 337 Ga. App. 542, 543 (788 SE2d 129) (2016) (the failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedure deprives this Court of jurisdiction). He failed to do so. Moreover, this Court will not review a trial court’s decision to refuse a certificate of immediate review. Duke v. State, 306 Ga. 171, 179 (3) (a) (829 SE2d 348) (2019).

1 At least one of the probate court’s orders entered on April 14, 2025, was entered in a different action, although both actions involve the same trust. For the foregoing reasons, we lack jurisdiction to consider this application, which is hereby DISMISSED.2

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 07/17/2025 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.

2 Respondent Howard Hunt’s motion for sanctions against Christopher Hunt, Sr., is hereby DENIED. However, we caution Christopher Hunt, Sr., that filing future frivolous matters in this Court will result in the imposition of sanctions. See Court of Appeals Rule 7.