Joseph Kelly v. Cindy Littleton-Hetzer
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
Date FiledSeptember 9, 2026
DocketA26A1399
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DIVISION
BARNES, P. J.,
MARKLE and HODGES, JJ.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
https://www.gaappeals.gov/rules
September 9, 2026
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A26A1399. KELLY v. LITTLETON-HETZER.
HODGES, Judge.
Joseph Kelly appeals from two orders of the trial court: (1) an order of dismissal,
following the parties’ filing of a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, and (2)
an order refusing to allow Kelly to file a motion to suspend child support pursuant to
a previously entered bill of peace. Kelly asserts that the dismissal order contained
language that did not reflect the parties’ stipulation, and also asserts that the trial
court erred by not allowing him to file his motion. For the following reasons, we
affirm.
1. Kelly first asserts that the trial court’s dismissal order contained erroneous
language “leav[ing] the situation the same as if the suit had never been brought in the
first place,” where the parties’ stipulation provided that a previous final order
regarding custody would be preserved. As noted by Kelly, however, the trial court’s
order tracks Georgia law describing the effect of a voluntary dismissal generally. See
Gallagher v. Fiderion Group, LLC, 300 Ga. App. 434, 436(1) (685 SE2d 387) (2009),
citing Lakes v. Marriott Corp., 264 Ga. 475, 478 (448 SE2d 203) (1994) (“[T]he
dismissal deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over the case and left the parties in the
same position as if the suit had never been filed[.]”) (punctuation omitted; emphasis
added). Kelly provides no authority to support his argument that it was error for the
trial court to include the language from Gallagher and Lakes in the dismissal order.
As this Court has said repeatedly, “[r]hetoric is not a substitute for cogent legal
analysis, which is, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the
relevant facts.” See, e.g., Dixon v. MARTA, 242 Ga. App. 262, 266(4) (529 SE2d 398)
(2000). Without the aid of authority or meaningful argument, this Court cannot
ascertain what legal arguments would support Kelly’s claim of error. See Muniz v.
State, 375 Ga. App. 140, 141–42(1)(b) (914 SE2d 358) (2025) (“As an appellate court,
we should not speculate or make arguments on an appellant’s behalf; to do so would
improperly change this Court’s role from disinterested decision-maker to appellate
2
advocate.”) (punctuation omitted). The rules of this Court generally preclude review
of any enumeration which is not supported by argument. See Ga. Ct. App. R. 25(d)(1)
(“Any enumeration of error that is not supported in the brief by citation of authority
or argument may be deemed abandoned.”); In the Interest of K. R., 367 Ga. App. 668,
677(2)(b) (888 SE2d 204) (2023) (“[W]e have held that an argument is abandoned if
it provides general citations to the ‘most basic legal authority’ without providing any
legal authority or argument related to the specific facts of [the] case.”). Because Kelly
has failed to advance any argument supported by citation of authority, this
enumeration is abandoned.
2. In his second enumeration of error, Kelly contends that the trial court abused
its discretion in not allowing him to file his motion to suspend child support pursuant
to a bill of peace. Kelly, however, has not cited any authority to suggest the trial court
could not do so. As such, his second enumeration is abandoned for the same reason
as in Division 1.
3. This Court notes that before this case was docketed, we considered Kelly’s
appeals from virtually identical orders in a related case. See Kelly v. Littleton-Hetzer
3
et al., A26A0339 (Ga. App. Feb. 13, 2026) (unpublished). After affirming the trial
court’s orders in that case, we were compelled to note that, including that case,
Kelly ha[d] filed twelve appeals with this Court since May 2024,
including nine appeals in connection with this case and three appeals in
a related criminal action. Ten of the twelve appeals were dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction and two, including [that] appeal, [had] resulted in the
trial court’s judgment being affirmed.
Kelly, A26A0339, slip op. at 4(2). We then cautioned Kelly regarding this Court’s
power to punish him if he continued to file frivolous appeals, including a penalty of
up to $10,000. Id.; see Ga. Ct. App. R. 7(e)(2).
In addition to citing no authority to support his second enumeration of error,
Kelly failed to cause the bill of peace (or the motion he attempted to file) to be
included in the record on appeal. In his previous appeal, this Court specifically noted
that because he had failed to include the bill of peace in the record, “we are unable to
review Kelly’s claim of error and presume that [the] trial court’s bill of peace ... [was]
procedurally sound and supported by sufficient evidence.” Kelly, A26A0339, slip op.
at 3(1). As such, even if Kelly’s claim of error was not abandoned, we would be
4
compelled to affirm the trial court’s order for the exact same reason provided in his
prior case.
Because we are required to affirm the trial court’s order for the same reason as
his prior appeal, Kelly either knew or should have known that this appeal was ill-
founded, has no substantial basis in law, and is frivolous. See Potts v. Richardson, 376
Ga. App. 90, 97–98(2) (918 SE2d 146) (2025); Ga. Ct. App. R. 7(e)(2) (permitting this
Court to levy penalties in civil cases for frivolous appeals). Given Kelly’s history in
this Court, including filing ten appeals which have been dismissed and his failure to
curb his conduct after being cautioned earlier this year, we hereby assess frivolous
appeal penalties against Kelly in the amount of $2,500. The trial court is DIRECTED
to enter a money judgment in this amount in favor of Cindy Littleton-Hetzer in this
action upon remittitur. See Ga. Ct. App. R. 7(e)(3). We further caution Kelly
regarding his duty to comply with this Court’s rules, as future violations will likely
result in much higher sanctions being imposed.
Judgment affirmed. Barnes, P. J., and Markle, J., concur
5