Background
This dispossessory action began in magistrate court, which entered a writ of possession. S. T. C., Inc. petitioned the superior court for review, but the superior court dismissed the petition as untimely.
In an earlier appeal, the Court of Appeals held that S. T. C.’s appeal to superior court was timely, vacated the dismissal, and remanded for de novo review. On remand, the superior court entered judgment for Ralph and Rita Venture, LLC and issued a renewed writ of possession.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals granted RRV’s motion to dismiss S. T. C.’s direct appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(11), an appeal from a state court’s de novo review of a magistrate-court decision must be initiated through an application for discretionary review.
S. T. C. filed a direct appeal rather than a discretionary application. Because compliance with the discretionary-appeal procedure is jurisdictional, the court held it lacked authority to consider the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A direct appeal cannot be used to challenge a superior-court judgment following de novo review of a magistrate-court decision.
- OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(11) requires a discretionary application in that posture.
- Failure to use the required discretionary procedure deprives the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that the route to appellate review matters as much as the merits. Parties appealing a superior-court ruling after de novo review of a magistrate-court case must seek discretionary review or risk dismissal regardless of the underlying dispute.