Sapp v. Sapp, S13F1749.
| Decision Date | 21 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. S13F1749.,S13F1749. |
| Citation | 294 Ga. 435,754 S.E.2d 79 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | SAPP v. SAPP. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Holle Weiss–Friedman, Brunswick, for Sapp.
Crystal R. Ferrier, Ferrier & Ferrier P.C., Brunswick, for appellee.
We granted the application of Mary Brown Sapp for a discretionary appeal from a divorce decree that required Sapp and her former husband to sell their marital home. But upon further review, it appears that the decree was not final.1 Although it directed the sale of the marital home, the decree also provided that, if Sapp and her former husband did not agree on a listing price—and there is no dispute that they never agreed—the court would set a price at a later date. When a divorce is granted by a decree that reserves an issue to be determined later, the decree is interlocutory, not final. See Miller v. Miller, 288 Ga. 274, 282(4), 705 S.E.2d 839 (2010); see also Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164, 165, 646 S.E.2d 469 (2007). Because the decree was interlocutory, Sapp was required to bring her appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5–6–34(b), which requires, among other things, a certificate of immediate review. Because Sapp failed to comply with OCGA § 5–6–34(b), we dismiss her appeal. See Stevens v. State, 292 Ga. 218, 734 S.E.2d 743 (2012); Gelfand v. Gelfand, 281 Ga. 40, 41, 635 S.E.2d 770 (2006).
Appeal dismissed.
All the Justices concur.
1. When we granted the application, we directed the parties to brief whether the decree was final.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Islamkhan v. Khan
...a decree which grants the parties a divorce but reserves an issue to be determined later is interlocutory. See Sapp v. Sapp , 294 Ga. 435, 435, 754 S.E.2d 79 (2014) ; Miller v. Miller , 288 Ga. 274, 282, 705 S.E.2d 839 (2010). In this case, both parties asked in their pleadings to be awarde......
- Foster v. State