Background
Bobbie N. Ward brought claims against Presbyterian Village, Stacy Bannworth, and Neil Pearce. The trial court dismissed her complaint with prejudice on April 23, 2026.
Ward evidently attempted to file an application for discretionary appeal on May 27, 2026, but the filing was rejected because it lacked a certificate of service and a copy of the trial court’s order. She successfully filed an application containing the required attachments on July 23, 2026, 91 days after the dismissal order. Ward also asked the Court of Appeals to treat her filing as timely as of its original electronic submission date or otherwise restore her right to appeal based on the asserted clerical rejection of a notice of appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction. Under OCGA § 5-6-35(d) and Court of Appeals Rule 31(a), a discretionary application must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order or judgment being appealed, and compliance with that deadline is jurisdictional. Ward’s July 23 application was therefore untimely.
The court denied Ward’s motion as well. To the extent she sought nunc pro tunc treatment for the application attempted on May 27, the request was moot because May 27 was itself more than 30 days after the April 23 dismissal order. To the extent her request concerned a notice of appeal apparently filed in the trial court, she was required to seek relief there because a trial court has authority to correct its own filing records and clerical errors.
Key Takeaways
- A discretionary-appeal application filed more than 30 days after the challenged order does not satisfy OCGA § 5-6-35(d).
- Giving Ward’s application the date of her May 27 attempted filing would have had no practical effect because that date also fell outside the statutory deadline.
- A request to correct the filing date or clerical handling of a notice of appeal filed in the trial court must be directed to that court.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that Georgia’s deadline for discretionary-appeal applications is jurisdictional. Here, the court did not decide whether missing attachments or a later correction would affect an application attempted within the 30-day period, because both Ward’s attempted filing and her completed filing occurred after that period expired.
The decision also distinguishes relief concerning an appellate application from correction of a trial-court filing record: a litigant seeking nunc pro tunc or clerical relief regarding a notice filed below must present that request to the trial court.