Gene Shroyer v. David Tuck

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: September 23, 2025
• Docket: A26A0418
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ September 23, 2025

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26A0418. GENE SHROYER v. DAVID TUCK.

In this proceeding to domesticate a foreign judgment, the trial court entered a final order domesticating the judgment of a New Hampshire court against defendant Gene Shroyer on February 14, 2025. Shroyer filed a motion to set aside pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60 (d), which the trial court denied on March 31, 2025. Shroyer filed this direct appeal on April 28, 2025. We lack jurisdiction. An appeal from the denial of an OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) motion to set aside requires the filing of an application for discretionary appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8), (b); Lemcon USA Corp. v. Icon Technology Consulting, 301 Ga. 888, 892 (804 SE2d 347) (2017). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). Shroyer’s failure to comply with the discretionary appeals procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.1 See Lemcon USA Corp., 301 Ga. at 892.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 09/23/2025 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.

1 Shroyer’s motion to set aside also requested a temporary injunction to halt enforcement of the underlying judgment, and the denial of an injunction is generally subject to direct appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (4). However, “the underlying subject matter generally controls over the relief sought in determining the proper procedure to follow to appeal,” Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 469 (448 SE2d 192) (1994), and the underlying subject matter here is the denial of Shroyer’s motion to set aside.