Juan Carlos Ortiz-Vazquez v. Icela Guzman Avelino

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ June 30, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A1450. JUAN CARLOS ORTIZ-VAZQUEZ v. ICELA GUZMAN AVELINO.

In this civil action arising under the Family Violence Act, OCGA § 19-13-1 et seq., the parties entered into a consent twelve-month protective order, which the trial court entered on November 13, 2019. Respondent Juan Carlos Ortiz-Vazquez later filed a motion to set aside the November 13 order and a motion for contempt, each of which the trial court denied in an order entered on March 23, 2021.1 Ortiz-Vazquez then filed this direct appeal, seeking appellate review of the November 13 and March 23 orders. We lack jurisdiction. Appeals of orders in domestic relations cases – including actions arising under

the Family Violence Act – must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2); Schmidt v. Schmidt, 270 Ga. 461, 461-462 (1) (510 SE2d 810) (1999). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471

SE2d 60) (1996).

1 According to the March 23 order, the trial court previously issued a ruling adverse to Ortiz-Vazquez on the same issue that was raised in his motion to set aside. The trial court subsequently denied Ortiz-Vazquez’s request for a certificate of immediate review as to the March 23 order. Ortiz-Vazquez’s failure to follow the required appellate procedure deprives us

of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.2 Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 06/30/2021 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.

2 Given our ruling on this issue, we express no opinion on: (i) whether Ortiz- Vazquez’s appeal from the consent twelve-month protective order – which expired in November 2020 – is untimely or moot; (ii) whether the trial court’s March 23 order also is subject to the discretionary appeal requirements based on the denial of Ortiz- Vazquez’s motion to set aside, see OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8); or (iii) whether either order sought to be appealed also is subject to the interlocutory appeal requirements, see OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).