Marie Caquias v. Carlos J. Kavetsky

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Marie Caquias v. Carlos J. Kavetsky

DecidedMay 2, 2018

DocketA18A1430

StatusPublished

This text of Marie Caquias v. Carlos J. Kavetsky (Marie Caquias v. Carlos J. Kavetsky) 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

Marie Caquias v. Carlos J. Kavetsky, (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ April 20, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1430. MARIE CAQUIAS v. CARLOS J. KAVETSKY.

Marie Caquias and Carlos Kavetsky were divorced in 2016. In 2017, Kavetsky filed a complaint in which he sought modification or termination of his alimony and child support obligations as set forth in the divorce decree. In January 2018, the trial court issued an order terminating Kavetsky’s alimony obligation and reducing his child support obligation. Caquias then filed this direct appeal.1 We lack jurisdiction. Where, as here, the underlying action involves rights and obligations arising out of a divorce decree and does not involve child custody, the case is a domestic relations matter within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). See Walker v. Estate of Mays, 279 Ga. 652, 653 (1) (619 SE2d 679) (2005). Appeals in such matters must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b); accord Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 47 (799 SE2d 160) (2017) (an appeal in a domestic relations case in which custody is not at issue must be brought by discretionary application). “[C]ompliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Fabe v. Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322, 332 (1) (405 SE2d 265) (1991).

1 Although the notice of appeal states that it was filed on behalf of both Caquias and Kavetsky, Caquias (a non-lawyer) is the only appellant, as she is the only one who signed the notice of appeal. See Aniebue v. Jaguar Credit Corp., 308 Ga. App. 1, 1, n. 1 (708 SE2d 4) (2011). Caquias’s failure to follow the proper procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See id.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 04/20/2018 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

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ April 20, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1430. MARIE CAQUIAS v. CARLOS J. KAVETSKY.

Marie Caquias and Carlos Kavetsky were divorced in 2016. In 2017, Kavetsky filed a complaint in which he sought modification or termination of his alimony and child support obligations as set forth in the divorce decree. In January 2018, the trial court issued an order terminating Kavetsky’s alimony obligation and reducing his child support obligation. Caquias then filed this direct appeal.1 We lack jurisdiction. Where, as here, the underlying action involves rights and obligations arising out of a divorce decree and does not involve child custody, the case is a domestic relations matter within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). See Walker v. Estate of Mays, 279 Ga. 652, 653 (1) (619 SE2d 679) (2005). Appeals in such matters must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b); accord Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 47 (799 SE2d 160) (2017) (an appeal in a domestic relations case in which custody is not at issue must be brought by discretionary application). “[C]ompliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Fabe v. Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322, 332 (1) (405 SE2d 265) (1991).

1 Although the notice of appeal states that it was filed on behalf of both Caquias and Kavetsky, Caquias (a non-lawyer) is the only appellant, as she is the only one who signed the notice of appeal. See Aniebue v. Jaguar Credit Corp., 308 Ga. App. 1, 1, n. 1 (708 SE2d 4) (2011). Caquias’s failure to follow the proper procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See id.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 04/20/2018 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Marie Caquias v. Carlos J. Kavetsky, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marie-caquias-v-carlos-j-kavetsky-gactapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack