Kreslyn Barron Odum v. Byron Brooks - Discretionary Application Dismissed

Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

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

April 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Kreslyn Barron Odum v. Byron Brooks

Court of Appeals of Georgia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A26D0420

• Disposition: Discretionary Application Dismissed

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (2K)

• PDF

Disposition

Discretionary Application Dismissed

Combined Opinion

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
April 13, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26D0420. KRESLYN BARRON ODUM v. BYRON BROOKS.

In this child custody modification and contempt action, the trial court entered
a temporary order in September 2024, in which, among other things, it transferred
physical custody of a minor child from the child’s mother, Kreslyn Odum, to the
child’s father, Byron Brooks. In an order entered on September 18, 2025, the trial
court sua sponte set aside all prior orders entered by another judge in the case,
concluded that Odum’s OCGA § 9-11-60(d) motion to set aside those orders was
thereby rendered moot, and further ruled that, pending a temporary hearing, the child
will remain with Brooks. Odum has filed an appeal from that order, which is currently
pending in this Court. See Case No. A26A1043.1
On November 5, 2025, the trial court entered an order requiring Odum to pay
her half of the prior guardian ad litem’s fees.2 Odum filed a motion to set aside the
order pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60(d). The trial court denied the motion, and Odum
filed this timely application for discretionary appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

1
Odum had filed an application for discretionary appeal, which was granted
under OCGA § 5-6-35(j) because the order was directly appealable pursuant to OCGA
§ 5-6-34(a)(11) (“[a]ll judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing
to change, or modifying child custody or holding or declining to hold persons in
contempt of such child custody judgment or orders.”). See Case No. A26D0153 (Nov.
5, 2025).
2
On September 18, 2025, and at the time the trial court set aside all prior
orders, the trial court also entered an order appointing a new guardian at litem.
Ordinarily, an appeal from the denial of a motion to set aside under OCGA §
9-11-60(d) requires compliance with the discretionary appeal statute. See OCGA §
5-6-35(a)(8). However, because this case remains pending in the trial court, the order
Odum seeks to appeal is a non-final order which did not resolve all issues in the case.
Consequently, she was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures
— including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court — to
obtain appellate review at this juncture. See OCGA § 5-6-34(b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga.
App. 435, 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989).
And although Odum filed an application for discretionary appeal, compliance
with that procedure does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an
interlocutory order from complying with the additional requirements of OCGA §
5-6-34(b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832–33 (471 SE2d 213) (1996).
Accordingly, Odum’s failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures
deprives us of jurisdiction over this application for discretionary appeal, which is
hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
04/13/2026
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.