KEITH BLOODWORTH v. PICKARD SALES COMPANY, INC.

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ September 17, 2025

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26A0345. KEITH BLOODWORTH et al. v. PICKARD SALES COMPANY, INC.

In this civil action, Keith and Kathy Bloodworth originally filed their complaint against Pickard Sales Company, Inc. At that time, Pickard informed the Bloodworths that Pickard had sold the associated business before the operative facts from the complaint took place. However, the Bloodworths continued to litigate the case against Pickard. Pickard filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted, and later requested attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14. The trial court granted the OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney fee motion and this direct appeal followed. We, however, lack jurisdiction. An appeal from a trial court order awarding OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney fees must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (10), (b); Capricorn Systems v. Godavarthy, 253 Ga. App. 840, 841-842 (560 SE2d 730) (2002). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). Consequently, the Bloodworths’ failure to follow the discretionary review procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Capricorn Systems, 253 Ga. App. at 842.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 09/17/2025 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.