Gray v. Springs, A96A2455
| Decision Date | 30 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. A96A2455,A96A2455 |
| Citation | 481 S.E.2d 3,224 Ga.App. 427 |
| Parties | , 97 FCDR 384 GRAY et al. v. SPRINGS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Robert J. Erb, Savannah, for appellants.
Donaldson, Herndon, Bell & Metts, James C. Metts, III, Savannah, for appellee.
William Terry Springs filed a petition for legitimation of Lana M. Gray Darby's ("the mother") minor child, alleging "it would be in the best interest of his [child] that a pattern of regular visitation be established." The mother denied the material allegations of this petition, asserted a claim for termination of Springs' parental rights, and the mother's husband, Gregory Scott Darby, filed a petition to adopt the minor child. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting Springs' petition for legitimization, denying the mother's claim for termination of Springs' parental rights and denying Gregory Scott Darby's adoption petition. The trial court reserved ruling on the issues of custody and visitation. The mother and Gregory Scott Darby filed this direct appeal. Held:
Springs has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal based on the mother's and Gregory Scott Darby's failure to obtain a certificate of immediate review from the trial court's interlocutory order as required by OCGA § 5-6-34(b).
Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833, 471 S.E.2d 213. The trial court's order in the case sub judice is interlocutory because it reserves ruling on the issues of custody and visitation. However, neither the mother nor Gregory Scott Darby obtained a certificate of immediate review from the trial court as required by OCGA § 5-6-34(b). This appeal must therefore be dismissed as premature. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833, 471 S.E.2d 213, supra.
Appeal dismissed.
RUFFIN, J., and HAROLD R. BANKE, Senior Appellate Judge, concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Interest of J. H.
...not acquire jurisdiction unless the procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) for interlocutory appeal is followed."). See also Gray v. Springs , 224 Ga.App. 427, 481 S.E.2d 3 (1997) ; Griffith v. Ga. Bd. of Dentistry , 175 Ga.App. 533, 333 S.E.2d 647 (1985). Accordingly, in light of the common legal ......
-
Croft v. Croft
...interlocutory order was required to follow the interlocutory application procedure set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34(b). See Gray v. Springs, 224 Ga.App. 427, 481 S.E.2d 3 (1997). Now, however, based on the express language of the recent amendment to the statute, orders in child custody cases are ......
-
Mays v. Rancine–Kinchen
...orders which reserve ruling on substantive issues in a case have been determined to be interlocutory in nature. See Gray v. Springs, 224 Ga.App. 427, 481 S.E.2d 3 (1997). See also Sotter v. Stephens, 291 Ga. 79, 727 S.E.2d 484 (2012) (judgment that reserved the calculation of the amount of ......
- Candler Hosp., Inc. v. Carter, A96A2383