KRISTA RENEE CORDOVA v. AMY DAVIS

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 2, 2021
DocketA21A1402
StatusPublished

This text of KRISTA RENEE CORDOVA v. AMY DAVIS (KRISTA RENEE CORDOVA v. AMY DAVIS) 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
KRISTA RENEE CORDOVA v. AMY DAVIS, (Ga. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ May 17, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A1402. KRISTA RENEE CORDOVA et al. v. AMY DAVIS et al.

The biological grandmother and step-grandfather of minor child C. C. filed a petition for custody against C. C.’s biological mother and adoptive father. The trial court entered a temporary order awarding joint custody of C. C. to the petitioners and respondents and setting a visitation schedule. Respondents subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the petitioners lacked standing under OCGA § 19-7-1 to bring the action. The trial court denied the motion, and the respondents filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction. “All judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing to change, or modifying child custody” are directly appealable. OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11). A child custody determination is “a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child.” OCGA § 19- 9-41 (3). The order that the respondents wish to appeal did not include any determination as to custody or visitation. Instead, it denied their motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Therefore, the order did not fall within OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), and it is not directly appealable. Rather, it is an interlocutory ruling that may be appealed only by following the interlocutory appeal procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Davis v. Davis, 242 Ga. 322, 322 (249 SE2d 90) (1978); Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829, 830 (747 SE2d 21) (2013). The respondents’ failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal requirements deprives this Court of jurisdiction to review this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 05/17/2021 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.

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

Related

Davis v. Davis
249 S.E.2d 90 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1978)
Murphy v. Murphy
747 S.E.2d 21 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
KRISTA RENEE CORDOVA v. AMY DAVIS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krista-renee-cordova-v-amy-davis-gactapp-2021.