Vinia Valmy Estivens v. Nadrica Byfield

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: June 27, 2025
• Docket: A25A2022
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ June 27, 2025

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25A2022. VINIA VALMY ESTIVENS v. NADRICA BYFIELD.

Nadrica Byfield obtained a twelve-month stalking protective order against Vinia Valmy Estivens. Estivens filed a motion to modify the protective order, but after she failed to appear for the scheduled hearing, the trial court dismissed that motion for want of prosecution. Estivens then moved to set aside the order of dismissal pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60. The trial court denied the motion to set aside, and Estivens filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

“The denial of a motion to set aside a final judgment under OCGA § 9-11-60 is not directly appealable and instead requires the filing of an application for discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35 (b).” Parker v. Robinson, 337 Ga. App. 362, 364 (2) (787 SE2d 317) (2016); see OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8), (b).

“Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Hair Restoration Specialists v. State of Ga., 360 Ga. App. 901, 903 (862 SE2d 564) (2021) (citation and punctuation omitted). Consequently, Estivens’s failure to follow the discretionary review procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 06/27/2025 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.