Michael Tom King v. Raquel King
This text of Michael Tom King v. Raquel King (Michael Tom King v. Raquel King) 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.
Opinion
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA,____________________ July 19, 2024
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A24A1723. MICHAEL TOM KING v. RAQUEL KING.
In this pending divorce action, defendant Michael King filed this pro se direct appeal from the trial court’s October 2023 order denying his request to attend a hearing via video-conference. We lack jurisdiction for two reasons. First, under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), appeals generally may be taken from “[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below.” Here, the October 2023 order is a non-final order that did not resolve all issues in this case. See Rivera v. Housing Auth. of Fulton County, 163 Ga. App. 648, 648 (295 SE2d 336) (1982). Consequently, Michael was required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures — including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court — to appeal the October 2023 order. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991). His failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal. See Bailey, 266 Ga. at 833. Second, even if the trial court’s order were final, “[a]ppeals 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). Michael’s failure to comply with the application procedures deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey, 266 Ga. at 833; Smoak, 221 Ga. App. at 258.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 07/19/2024 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Michael Tom King v. Raquel King, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-tom-king-v-raquel-king-gactapp-2024.