Opinion
A24A1723
07-19-2024
MICHAEL TOM KING v. RAQUEL KING.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
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 S.E.2d 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 S.E.2d 213) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408 S.E.2d 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 S.E.2d 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.