Opinion
A22D0038 A22D0043
09-21-2021
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
In this civil case, the trial court granted the motion for service by publication filed by the plaintiff. The defendants, Hilda Hutchinson and Mia Hutchinson, filed a motion to vacate the order allowing service by publication. The trial court denied the motion to vacate, and the defendants filed these two applications for discretionary review.
The applications are virtually identical, with the exception of additional exhibits filed in Case No. A22D0043.
We lack jurisdiction because the case remains pending below. Given the pendency of the case, the defendants were required to comply with the interlocutory appeal requirements, which include obtaining and providing a certificate of immediate review from the trial court, in order to appeal the trial court's order denying the motion to vacate. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga.App. 435, 435 (383 S.E.2d 906) (1989). In addition, the discretionary appeal statute does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from complying with the additional requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 S.E.2d 213) (1996).
Accordingly, these discretionary applications are hereby DISMISSED.