Elizabeth Jordan v. Jeffery May

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: April 29, 2026
• Docket: A26A0663
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ April 29, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26A0663. ELIZABETH JORDAN v. JEFFERY MAY.

In this stalking protective order case, the trial court issued an order on September 11, 2025, in which it: (i) denied plaintiff Elizabeth Jordan’s January 2024 “Amended Motion for New Trial”; (ii) found Jordan in contempt of a prior order awarding $5,000 in attorney fees to defendant Jeffery May; and (iii) denied May’s February 2024 motion for OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney fees. At that time, Jordan was represented by attorney Taylor Howard. On September 19, 2025, Jordan filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-38(a). On October 2, 2025, Howard filed a motion to withdraw from her representation of Jordan. The trial court granted Howard’s motion to withdraw on October 15, 2025. For the reasons that follow, we lack jurisdiction over this pro se appeal. Contempt rulings generally are directly appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(2). See Hamilton Cap. Group v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., 266 Ga. App. 1, 2–3(1) (596 SE2d 656) (2004). A layperson, however, may not represent herself and also be represented by an attorney. Romich v. All Secure, Inc., 361 Ga. App. 505, 505 (863 SE2d 179) (2021). And “a formal withdrawal of counsel cannot be accomplished until after the trial court issues an order permitting the withdrawal.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Consequently, Jordan’s pro se notice of appeal is a nullity, as she was represented by counsel when she filed it. See Weinstock v. Small, 378 Ga. App. 319, 320 (925 SE2d 760) (2026) (“[A] pro se notice of appeal filed by a represented party in a civil case[ ] is a legal nullity and does not confer appellate jurisdiction to this Court.”); Romich, 361 Ga. App. at 505 (dismissing appeal because the appellant’s pro se notice of appeal, filed while she was represented by counsel, was a nullity). We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider this pro se appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Weinstock, 378 Ga. App. at 320; Romich, 361 Ga. App. at 505. May’s motion to dismiss this appeal for other reasons is hereby DENIED as MOOT.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 04/29/2026 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.