Opinion
A22A0446
11-12-2021
KRYSTAL JOY LUCADO v. HUGH DAVID COHERD.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
In this action for modification of child support and visitation, Krystal Joy Lucado seeks to appeal the trial court's order granting Hugh David Coherd's petition for declaratory judgment on the appropriate interest rate to be applied to Coherd's child support arrearage. Coherd has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. We lack jurisdiction because the order at issue is not subject to direct appeal.
Lucado filed a notice of appeal to Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal to this Court. See S21A1080, Sept. 21, 2021.
"Appeals 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). Because this case involves the collection of child support, it is a domestic relations case within the meaning of the statute. See Booker v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 317 Ga.App. 426, 427 (731 S.E.2d 110) (2012) (an action in which the "underlying subject matter is the obligation to provide child support" is "a domestic relations case subject to review only by application"). Although Coherd also sought to modify visitation in his action, which is a part of custody, Vines v. Vines, 292 Ga. 550, 551 (2) (739 S.E.2d 374) (2013), and orders regarding custody are directly appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), the order at issue in this appeal does not include any child custody rulings, so it does not fall within the scope of this provision. See Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 47 (799 S.E.2d 160) (2017).
Moreover, the order at issue is an interlocutory ruling, as the trial court scheduled the final hearing on all outstanding matters in the case to occur at a later time. Accordingly, Lucado can not obtain appellate review of the order without complying with the interlocutory appeal procedure set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), which includes obtaining a certificate of immediate review. See Duke v. State, 306 Ga. 171, 172 (1) (829 S.E.2d 348) (2019); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 589 (1) (408 S.E.2d 103) (1991). Lucado sought a certificate of immediate review, «V11, R143-158» but it appears that the trial court denied her request. The denial of a request for a certificate of immediate review is not an appealable ruling. See Price v. State, 237 Ga. 352, 352-353 (2) (227 S.E.2d 368) (1976).
Lucado's failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedure deprives this Court of jurisdiction over the appeal. See generally Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 S.E.2d 213) (1996) (party seeking appellate review from an interlocutory order that also implicates the discretionary application statute must comply with the interlocutory application statute). Accordingly, Coherd's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey, 266 Ga. at 833.