Opinion
A24A0721
05-01-2024
RAUSHANAH RODGERS v. KHALILAH SLADE.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
Raushanah Rodgers filed suit against her sister, Khalilah Slade, alleging that Slade exercised undue influence over their aunt, who designated Slade as the beneficiary on her financial accounts shortly before the aunt's death. Rodgers also sought an interlocutory injunction that would require Slade to pay the funds she received from her aunt's accounts into the registry of the court or to have the funds placed into a trust account pending resolution of the case. On July 19, 2023, the trial court denied the request for an interlocutory injunction, and Rodgers appealed. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
Rodgers appealed to the Supreme Court, which transferred the case to this Court. See Case No. S24A0262 (Nov. 16, 2023).
Ordinarily, an order either granting or denying an interlocutory injunction may be appealed directly. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (4). But Rodgers filed a pro se notice of appeal during a time in which she was represented by counsel. "A layperson does not have the right to represent herself and also be represented by an attorney. As a result, a party cannot attempt to represent herself by filing pro se pleadings, while at the same time she is represented by counsel of record." Romich v. All Secure, Inc., 361 Ga.App. 505, 505 (863 S.E.2d 179) (2021) (punctuation and footnotes omitted).
Accordingly, Rodgers's pro se notice of appeal is a legal nullity. See id. We thus lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.