Faye Rosenberg v. Alexander Raskin

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: June 13, 2025
• Docket: A25A1630
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ June 13, 2025

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25A1630. FAYE ROSENBERG v. ALEXANDER RASKIN.

In this divorce action, Faye Rosenberg filed two motions for contempt and a motion for attorney fees. The trial court dismissed one motion for contempt, denied the other, and denied the motion for attorney fees. Rosenberg now directly appeals from those orders. We lack jurisdiction. Ordinarily, appeals from “judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, and other domestic relations cases” must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b). In this case, however, the orders Rosenberg seeks to appeal are not final orders, as the divorce remains pending. Therefore, in order to appeal the trial court’s orders, Rosenberg was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedure and obtain a certificate of immediate review. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Onyemobi v. Onyemobi, __ Ga. App. __, Case No. A25A0570 (May 29, 2025) (holding that parties in divorce cases that challenge interlocutory custody rulings must comply with the interlocutory appeal procedure). Parties seeking appellate review from an interlocutory order that also implicates the discretionary application statute must comply with the interlocutory application statute. See generally Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996). Rosenberg’s failure to follow the proper appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 06/13/2025 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.