Opinion
A23A0040
09-08-2022
CRESHUNDRA D. FULTON v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company filed an insurance subrogation action against three defendants, including Creshunda Fulton. On June 26, 2019, the trial court entered a final judgment against Fulton and another defendant, holding them jointly and severally liable for a total amount of $4,174.10. In May 2021, Fulton filed a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment, alleging that she was not served with a copy of the complaint. The trial court denied the motion, and Fulton filed this appeal. State Farm has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Fulton was required to follow the discretionary appeal procedures. We agree.
First, as State Farm contends in its motion to dismiss, the discretionary appeal process applies to "[a]ppeals in all actions for damages in which the judgment is $10,000.00 or less[.]" See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6); Jennings v. Moss, 235 Ga.App. 357, 357 (509 S.E.2d 655) (1998). The trial court's judgment in this case was less than $10,000, so Fulton was required to file an application for discretionary appeal to obtain appellate review.
Second, an application for discretionary appeal was also required under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8) because the trial court denied a motion to set aside that was brought under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d). See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8); Jim Ellis Atlanta, Inc. v. Adamson, 283 Ga.App. 116 (640 S.E.2d 688) (2006). Here, Fulton's motion alleged that the judgment entered against her must be set aside due to invalid service of process. This is a claim under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) (1), which provides that a judgment may be set aside for lack of jurisdiction over the person. See Burch v. Dines, 267 Ga.App. 459, 461 (2) (600 S.E.2d 374) (2004).
For both of these reasons, Fulton was required to follow the discretionary appeals procedure to obtain appellate review in this case. "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). Fulton's failure to follow the required appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, State Farm's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.