Viola D. Garris v. Bank of America, N. A.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Viola D. Garris v. Bank of America, N. A.

DecidedFebruary 26, 2016

DocketA16D0270

StatusPublished

This text of Viola D. Garris v. Bank of America, N. A. (Viola D. Garris v. Bank of America, N. A.) 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

Viola D. Garris v. Bank of America, N. A., (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ February 26, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16D0270. VIOLA D. GARRIS et al. v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.

On February 16, 2016, Viola D. Garris filed this pro se application for discretionary appeal seeking review of the trial court’s January 12, 2016 order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss her pro se complaint for quiet title. Although it appears from the materials before us that the trial court’s order is a directly appealable final judgment, see OCGA § 5-6-34 (a), we lack jurisdiction to consider Garris’s application because it is untimely. Ordinarily, if a party applies for discretionary review of a directly appealable order, we grant the application under OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). To fall within this general rule, however, the application must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d) and (j); Hill v. State, 204 Ga. App. 582 (420 SE2d 393) (1992). The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not made in compliance therewith. See Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Because Garris filed her application 35 days after entry of the order she seeks to appeal,1 the application is untimely, and it is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

1 Although it appears that Garris attempted to file her application earlier than February 16, 2016, the application was not accepted because Garris failed to follow the Court of Appeals rules. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 02/26/2016 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 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,____________________ February 26, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16D0270. VIOLA D. GARRIS et al. v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.

On February 16, 2016, Viola D. Garris filed this pro se application for discretionary appeal seeking review of the trial court’s January 12, 2016 order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss her pro se complaint for quiet title. Although it appears from the materials before us that the trial court’s order is a directly appealable final judgment, see OCGA § 5-6-34 (a), we lack jurisdiction to consider Garris’s application because it is untimely. Ordinarily, if a party applies for discretionary review of a directly appealable order, we grant the application under OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). To fall within this general rule, however, the application must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d) and (j); Hill v. State, 204 Ga. App. 582 (420 SE2d 393) (1992). The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not made in compliance therewith. See Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Because Garris filed her application 35 days after entry of the order she seeks to appeal,1 the application is untimely, and it is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

1 Although it appears that Garris attempted to file her application earlier than February 16, 2016, the application was not accepted because Garris failed to follow the Court of Appeals rules. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 02/26/2016 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 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)

Viola D. Garris v. Bank of America, N. A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/viola-d-garris-v-bank-of-america-n-a-gactapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack