Opinion
A23A0898
02-07-2023
DANYELLE HOWELL PAUL v. SCOTT JASON PAUL.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
Danyelle Howell Paul and Scott Jason Paul divorced in November 2015. In 2018, the wife filed a motion to set aside the divorce decree, and the husband filed a motion to dismiss her motion. The trial court granted the husband's motion, dismissing the wife's motion. The wife filed an application for discretionary appeal from the trial court's order, which this Court granted. See Case. No. A19D0499 (June 24, 2019). In the direct appeal that ensued, we reversed the trial court's order. See Paul v. Paul, 355 Ga.App. 828 (846 S.E.2d 138) (2020). Back in the trial court, the wife filed a second motion to set aside, which the trial court also denied. The wife filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's order. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
Ordinarily, appeals from "judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, and other domestic relations cases" must be made by application for discretionary appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2); Russo v. Manning, 252 Ga. 155, 155 (312 S.E.2d 319) (1984). However, when the order specifically reserves the issue of attorney fees, it is not a final order. "[A]n order is final and appealable when it leaves no issues remaining to be resolved, constitutes the court's final ruling on the merits of the action, and leaves the parties with no further recourse in the trial court." Thomas v. Douglas County, 217 Ga.App. 520, 522 (1) (457 S.E.2d 835) (1995); see also OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). Therefore, in order to appeal the trial court's order, the wife was required to comply with the interlocutory procedures and obtain a certificate of immediate review. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); see also Miller v. Miller, 288 Ga. 274, 282 (4) (705 S.E.2d 839) (2010) (holding that there was no final judgment in a divorce action until the reserved issue of attorney fees was resolved); CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga.App. 480, 481 (713 S.E.2d 678) (2011). Parties seeking appellate review from an interlocutory order that also implicates the discretionary application statute must comply with the interlocutory application statute. See generally Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 S.E.2d 213) (1996). The wife's failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures deprives this Court of jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey, 266 Ga. at 833;.