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

March 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Laverda Jones v. Gregory Jones

Court of Appeals of Georgia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A26I0144

• Disposition: Interlocutory Application Dismissed

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Interlocutory Application Dismissed

Combined Opinion

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
March 23, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26I0144. LAVERDA JONES v. GREGORY JONES.

In this divorce action, on January 29, 2026, the trial court entered an order
partially denying Laverda Jones’s motion to set aside a purported agreement. On
February 11, 2026, the trial court issued a certificate of immediate review regarding
the order, nunc pro tunc to February 8, 2026. Jones filed this application for
interlocutory appeal on February 22, 2026. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
Under OCGA § 5-6-34(b), a party may request interlocutory review only if the
trial court certifies within ten days of entry of the order at issue that immediate review
should be had. A timely certificate of immediate review is a jurisdictional requirement,
see Von Waldner v. Baldwin/Cheshire, Inc., 133 Ga. App. 23, 24 (2) (209 SE2d 715)
(1974), and if the certificate of immediate review is not entered within the prescribed
ten-day period, it is untimely, and the party seeking review must wait until the final
judgment to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34(b); Duke v. State, 306 Ga. 171, 178 (3)(a) (829
SE2d 348) (2019).
Here, the certificate of immediate review was issued 13 days after entry of the
order on appeal. Although the trial court signed the certificate of immediate review
“nunc pro tunc” to February 8, 2026, the relevant date for determining the timeliness
of the certificate is the date it was entered. See Van Schallern v. Stanco, 130 Ga. App.
687 (204 SE2d 317) (1974) (“[A] certificate for the immediate review of a nonfinal or
interlocutory judgment is ineffective unless entered, i.e., filed with the clerk, within
ten days after entry of the judgment appealed from.”); see also Whitlock v. State, 124
Ga. App. 599, 601 (1) (185 SE2d 90) (1971) (“A nunc pro tunc entry of a certificate for
immediate review cannot revive a right of appeal which has expired.”), rev’d in part
on other grounds, 230 Ga. 700 (198 SE2d 865) (1973).
Because the trial court did not enter the certificate of immediate review within
ten days of entry of the order at issue, we lack jurisdiction to consider this application
for interlocutory appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
03/23/2026
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.