Opinion
A23D0352
07-03-2023
EMANUEL RAMOS NAVEDO v. ORIETTE T. RAMOS.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
In June 2021, Emanuel Ramos Navedo filed a petition for divorce against Oriette T. Ramos. After Oriette failed to file an answer or other defensive pleadings, Emanuel filed a motion under OCGA § 9-11-12 (c), seeking judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted that motion and entered a final judgment and decree of divorce on February 8, 2022. In November 2022, Oriette moved to set aside the divorce decree under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d), asserting that in obtaining the divorce, Emanuel had committed fraud against both the court and her. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Oriette's claims of fraud meritorious, and granted the motion to set aside. Emanuel then filed this application for a discretionary appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (2), appeals from final judgments in divorce cases must come by way of an application for a discretionary appeal. The grant of a motion to set aside a judgment, however, does not constitute a final, appealable judgment. Instead, "like the grant of a motion for new trial," the grant of a motion to set aside "leaves the case pending in the trial court below." Laff Lines, Ltd. v. Dimauro, 186 Ga.App. 24, 25 (366 S.E.2d 375) (1988). See also Hooper v. Taylor, 230 Ga.App. 128, 128 (1) (495 S.E.2d 594) (1998). Accordingly, Emanuel was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures - including securing a certificate of immediate review from the trial court - to obtain immediate appellate review of the order at issue. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Guy v. Roberson, 214 Ga.App. 391, 392 (1) (448 S.E.2d 60) (1994). And Emanuel's filing of an application for a discretionary appeal does not excuse him from complying with the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 S.E.2d 213) (1996) (where a party is appealing an interlocutory order, the filing of an application for a discretionary appeal is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the appellate court); Eidson v. Croutch, 337 Ga.App. 542, 543 (788 S.E.2d 129) (2016) (same).
Given Emanuel's failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures, we lack jurisdiction to consider this application, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey, 266 Ga. at 833.