Kashka S. Scott v. Precious Anderson
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
Date FiledJuly 2, 2026
DocketA26A2222
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA,____________________
July 02, 2026
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A26A2221, A26A2222. KASHKA S. SCOTT v. PRECIOUS ANDERSON (two
cases).
In this action for modification of custody, visitation, and child support, the trial
court entered two orders on May 28, 2026. In the first, the court denied petitioner
Kashka Scott’s post-judgment motion to stay the release of funds held in the court
registry, vacate “the enforcement portion” of a prior order holding him in contempt
for failure to pay certain obligations, and direct the release of the registry funds to him.
Scott’s pro se direct appeal from that order has been docketed in this Court as Case
No. A26A2222. In the second order, the trial court lifted a prior stay on the
disbursement of the registry funds and directed the trial court clerk to disburse those
funds to respondent Precious Anderson. Scott’s pro se direct appeal from that order
has been docketed in this Court as Case No. A26A2221. We lack jurisdiction over
both appeals.
“Appeals from judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, and other domestic
relations cases” must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review.
OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(2), (b); see Onyemobi v. Onyemobi, 375 Ga. App. 538, 538, 540–41
(916 SE2d 738) (2025). While direct appeals lie from orders “awarding, refusing to
change, or modifying child custody or holding or declining to hold persons in
contempt of such child custody judgment or orders” under OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(11),
the orders at issue here contain no such rulings. See Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 46–47
(799 SE2d 160) (2017) (the issue raised on appeal governs whether an appeal must be
initiated by filing an application for discretionary review). “Compliance with the
discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dep’t of Human Res., 221
Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). Scott’s failure to follow the required
appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over these direct appeals, both of
which are hereby DISMISSED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
07/02/2026
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.