Howell v. Howell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Howell v. Howell

347 S.E.2d 361, 179 Ga. App. 612, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 1978

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 3, 1986

Docket72690

StatusPublished

This text of 347 S.E.2d 361 (Howell v. Howell) 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

Howell v. Howell, 347 S.E.2d 361, 179 Ga. App. 612, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 1978 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Chief Judge.

Howell filed this direct appeal from an order of the trial court reducing the amount of her recovery in a garnishment action filed to satisfy her former husband’s court-ordered obligation to pay child support. Held:

“OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (4) provides that in cases involving garnishment, except for all judgments or orders granting or refusing applications for attachment against fraudulent debtors which are directly appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (5) (such judgments or orders are [613]*613not in issue here), an application for appeal must be taken. Inasmuch as appellant has failed to obtain an order of this court permitting the filing of an appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (4), the appeal must be dismissed. [Cit.]” Murdock v. Bank of America &c., 177 Ga. App. 409, 410 (339 SE2d 392) (1985).

Decided July 3, 1986. Lester B. Johnson III, for appellant. Herbert Chestnut, for appellee.

Appeal dismissed.

Birdsong, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

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

Banke, Chief Judge.

Howell filed this direct appeal from an order of the trial court reducing the amount of her recovery in a garnishment action filed to satisfy her former husband’s court-ordered obligation to pay child support. Held:

“OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (4) provides that in cases involving garnishment, except for all judgments or orders granting or refusing applications for attachment against fraudulent debtors which are directly appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (5) (such judgments or orders are [613]*613not in issue here), an application for appeal must be taken. Inasmuch as appellant has failed to obtain an order of this court permitting the filing of an appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (4), the appeal must be dismissed. [Cit.]” Murdock v. Bank of America &c., 177 Ga. App. 409, 410 (339 SE2d 392) (1985).

Decided July 3, 1986. Lester B. Johnson III, for appellant. Herbert Chestnut, for appellee.

Appeal dismissed.

Birdsong, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 S.E.2d 361, 179 Ga. App. 612, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 1978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-howell-gactapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack