Ciara Johnson v. Charles Walden Lane

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 19, 2018
DocketA19A0563
StatusPublished

This text of Ciara Johnson v. Charles Walden Lane (Ciara Johnson v. Charles Walden Lane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ciara Johnson v. Charles Walden Lane, (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ December 06, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0563. CIARA JOHNSON v. CHARLES WALDEN LANE.

This case began in superior court as a petition for custody and legitimation. It was transferred to juvenile court because there was a related case pending there, and the juvenile court apparently entered a final judgment in May 2016. Defendant Ciara Johnson subsequently filed a motion to set aside, contending that she had not received notice of the final judgment and asking the superior court to re-enter the judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60 (g). The superior court denied the motion on the ground that it was the juvenile court – not the superior court – that issued the order in question. Johnson then filed this appeal. The superior court’s order, however, is not directly appealable. The denial of a motion for re-entry under OCGA § 9-11-60 (g) is generally subject to direct appeal. See Crawford v. Kroger Co., 183 Ga. App. 836 (1) (360 SE2d 274) (1987). A legitimation action is a domestic relations case, however, and an appeal in a domestic relations case must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b); Cloud v. Norwood, 321 Ga. App. 218, 218 (739 SE2d 93) (2013); Brown v. Williams, 174 Ga. App. 604, 604 (332 SE2d 48) (1985). “[C]ompliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Fabe v. Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322, 332 (1) (405 SE2d 265) (1991). Johnson’s failure to follow the discretionary review procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Cloud, 321 Ga. App. at 218; Floyd, 199 Ga. App. at 332 (1). Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 12/06/2018 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fabe v. Floyd
405 S.E.2d 265 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1991)
Brown v. Williams
332 S.E.2d 48 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Crawford v. Kroger Company
360 S.E.2d 274 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)
Cloud v. Norwood
739 S.E.2d 93 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ciara Johnson v. Charles Walden Lane, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciara-johnson-v-charles-walden-lane-gactapp-2018.