Joseph Kelly v. Cindy Hetzer

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 6, 2025
DocketA25D0253
StatusPublished

This text of Joseph Kelly v. Cindy Hetzer (Joseph Kelly v. Cindy Hetzer) 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
Joseph Kelly v. Cindy Hetzer, (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ March 06, 2025

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25D0253. JOSEPH KELLY v. CINDY HETZER.

In this action for custody, visitation, and alleged family violence, Joseph Kelly seeks discretionary review of, among other orders, the denial of a motion to recuse and the denial of his request for admissions. We, however, lack jurisdiction. The underlying custody and visitation case appears to be still pending before the trial court1. Thus, the orders that Kelly wishes to appeal are interlocutory in nature. Compare OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), with OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). And although “[a]ll judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing to change, or modifying child custody” are directly appealable, even if interlocutory, see OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11); Lacy v. Lacy, 320 Ga. App. 739, 742 (3) (740 SE2d 695) (2013), the trial court’s orders here do not involve custody or visitation determinations. Thus, Kelly was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) — including obtaining certificates of immediate review from the trial court — to challenge them. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408 SE2d 103)(1991); see also Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 45-46 (799 SE2d 160) (2017) (explaining that an appellate court looks to the issue raised on appeal to determine whether a party may bring a direct appeal). Kelly’s failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures deprives us

1 The application materials appear to contain orders from two different civil actions. However, both appear to still be pending before the trial court. of jurisdiction over this application, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey, 266 Ga. at 832-833. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 03/06/2025 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.

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

Related

Bailey v. Bailey
471 S.E.2d 213 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996)
Scruggs v. Georgia Department of Human Resources
408 S.E.2d 103 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1991)
Voyles v. Voyles
799 S.E.2d 160 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2017)
Lacy v. Lacy
740 S.E.2d 695 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Joseph Kelly v. Cindy Hetzer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-kelly-v-cindy-hetzer-gactapp-2025.