Mark C. Bloomfield v. Susan Bloomfield

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 16, 2021
DocketA21A1039
StatusPublished

This text of Mark C. Bloomfield v. Susan Bloomfield (Mark C. Bloomfield v. Susan Bloomfield) 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
Mark C. Bloomfield v. Susan Bloomfield, (Ga. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ March 03, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A1039. MARK C. BLOOMFIELD v. SUSAN BLOOMFIELD.

Plaintiff Susan Bloomfield and defendant Mark Bloomfield (“Husband”) were

divorced in 2006. In December 2020, the trial court issued: (i) an order finding

Husband in contempt of various provisions in the parties’ divorce decree; and (ii) an

order regarding the sale of certain real property contemplated by the divorce decree.

Husband then filed this pro se direct appeal, seeking review of the December 2020

orders. We lack jurisdiction.

“Appeals from judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, and other domestic

relations cases” must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review.

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure

is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471

SE2d 60) (1996). Because this is a domestic relations case, Husband was required to

comply with the discretionary appeal procedure to obtain review of the December 2020 orders.1 His failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal,

which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 03/03/2021 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.

1 Given our ruling in this regard, we express no opinion on whether the December 2020 orders were non-final, in which case compliance with the interlocutory appeal procedures also would be required to seek appellate review. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a), (b); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991).

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

Related

Scruggs v. Georgia Department of Human Resources
408 S.E.2d 103 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1991)
Smoak v. Department of Human Resources
471 S.E.2d 60 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mark C. Bloomfield v. Susan Bloomfield, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-c-bloomfield-v-susan-bloomfield-gactapp-2021.