Piechoczek v. Jones - Child Custody Appeal Dismissed

GA Court of Appeals Opinions

Filed March 31st, 2026

Detected March 31st, 2026

Summary

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed appeal A26A1266 in Piechoczek v. Jones, a child custody dispute, for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the appellant's pro se motion for new trial was a legal nullity because she was simultaneously represented by counsel, and therefore did not toll the 30-day deadline to file a notice of appeal under OCGA § 5-6-38(a).

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Court of Appeals of Georgia dismissed appeal A26A1266, Julianna Piechoczek v. Tudor Jones, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the custody dispute. The court held that Piechoczek's pro se motion for new trial, filed while she was represented by counsel, constituted a legal nullity under Georgia law and did not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. The court applied OCGA § 5-6-38(a) and precedent from Romich v. All Secure, Inc. and In the Interest of N. C., holding that a party cannot file pro se pleadings while simultaneously being represented by counsel of record.\n\nFor practitioners, this decision reinforces that represented parties must act through counsel for all filings—pro se submissions made while represented by counsel are void and have no legal effect. Family law practitioners should ensure clear communication with clients regarding the prohibition on hybrid representation and the strict 30-day appellate deadline under Georgia law.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 31, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Julianna Piechoczek v. Tudor Jones

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Citations: None known
Docket Number: A26A1266
Disposition: Dismissed
Opinion
Authorities (1)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Disposition

Dismissed

Combined Opinion

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
March 31, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26A1266. JULIANNA PIECHOCZEK v. TUDOR JONES.

Julianna Piechoczek and Tudor Jones are the parents of two minor children. On
August 11, 2025, the trial court entered a final order, awarding the parties joint legal
custody with Jones having primary physical custody. On September 11, 2025,
Piechoczek filed a pro se motion for new trial and to set aside the judgment, which the
trial court denied, finding, in relevant part, that the motion was untimely. Piechoczek
then filed this direct appeal from that ruling.1 This Court, however, lacks jurisdiction.
To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the entry of an
appealable judgment. OCGA § 5-6-38(a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of
appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. Yanes v.
Escobar, 362 Ga. App. 896, 898 (870 SE2d 506) (2022). Although a timely filed
motion for new trial extends the time in which to seek appellate review, a void or
ineffective motion for new trial does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal under
OCGA § 5-6-38(a); Wright v. Rhodes, 198 Ga. App. 269 (401 SE2d 35) (1990).
Here, Piechoczek’s pro se motion for new trial is a legal nullity, as she was
represented by counsel at the time it was filed. See Romich v. All Secure, Inc., 361 Ga.
App. 505, 505 (863 SE2d 179) (2021) (“A layperson does not have the right to
represent herself and also be represented by an attorney. As a result, a party cannot
attempt to represent herself by filing pro se pleadings, while at the same time she is

1
In Case Number A26A1258, Piechoczek seeks to appeal the trial court’s final
order.
represented by counsel of record.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted); In the
Interest of N. C., 358 Ga. App. 379, 379 (855 SE2d 379) (2021) (dismissing a direct
appeal in a child custody proceeding because the mother’s pro se notice of appeal,
filed while she was represented by counsel, was a nullity). We therefore lack
jurisdiction to consider this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Romich, 361 Ga.
App. at 505; In the Interest of N. C., 358 Ga. App. at 379.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
03/31/2026
I certify that the above is a true extract from
the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court
hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.