Background
In 2005, a trial court ordered Ehrman Jackson to pay child support. Contempt motions followed, and Jackson was held in contempt twice.
In 2026, Jackson filed a motion titled a motion to vacate a void judgment, request for judicial notice, and motion to stay enforcement. He challenged the court’s jurisdiction over the matter, asserting that service had not been proper. The trial court denied the motion, and Jackson filed a direct appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Looking to the substance rather than the title of Jackson’s filing, the court treated it as a motion to set aside a judgment for lack of personal or subject-matter jurisdiction under OCGA § 9-11-60(d)(1).
An order denying a motion to set aside under that provision must be appealed through an application for discretionary review, not a direct appeal. The court also explained that child-support collection is a domestic-relations matter, which independently requires use of the discretionary-appeal procedure. Because Jackson did not follow that procedure, the court lacked jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- Courts assess a filing by its substance, not merely its caption.
- An appeal from denial of a motion to set aside a judgment under OCGA § 9-11-60(d) requires a discretionary application.
- Child-support collection cases are domestic-relations cases subject to Georgia’s discretionary-appeal requirement.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that compliance with Georgia’s discretionary-appeal procedure is jurisdictional. Even a challenge alleging a void judgment for lack of service cannot proceed by direct appeal when the governing statutes require an application for discretionary review.