Eric Clark v. Ace Homes, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 29, 2024
DocketA24A1479
StatusPublished

This text of Eric Clark v. Ace Homes, LLC (Eric Clark v. Ace Homes, LLC) 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
Eric Clark v. Ace Homes, LLC, (Ga. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ May 29, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A1479. ERIC CLARK v. ACE HOMES, LLC.

This case originated as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. In February 2023, the magistrate court issued a writ of possession against Eric Clark and in favor of Ace Homes, LLC. Clark filed an appeal to the state court. In November 2023, the state court entered a judgment in favor of Ace Homes, stating that the writ of possession should issue against Clark. Clark filed a pro se notice of appeal from the state court’s judgment. On April 1, 2024, the state court dismissed Clark’s appeal based on his failure to pay the costs. Clark has filed a direct appeal from the state court’s April 1, 2024 order. As a general rule, “a trial court’s order dismissing a properly filed direct appeal is itself subject to a direct appeal.” American Med. Security Group, Inc. v. Parker, 284 Ga. 102, 103 (2) (663 SE2d 697) (2008). However, a trial court’s order dismissing an improperly filed direct appeal is not subject to direct appeal. See id. Moreover, an appeal from a state court order reviewing a decision of the magistrate court by de novo proceedings must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11); Strachan v. Meritor Mtg. Corp. East, 216 Ga. App. 82, 82 (453 SE2d 119) (1995). See also OCGA § 5-3-5 (b) (providing that when a party files a petition for review, the “reviewing court shall conduct a de novo proceeding”). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). Because Clark seeks to appeal a decision of the state court reviewing de novo a decision of the magistrate court, he was required to file an application for discretionary review. He failed to do so. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 05/29/2024 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

American Medical Security Group, Inc. v. Parker
663 S.E.2d 697 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008)
Strachan v. Meritor Mortgage Corp. East
453 S.E.2d 119 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1995)
Smoak v. Department of Human Resources
471 S.E.2d 60 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eric Clark v. Ace Homes, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eric-clark-v-ace-homes-llc-gactapp-2024.