Akash Dixit v. Christopher Brasher, Judge
A18A0280
| Ga. Ct. App. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Akash Dixit filed a mandamus petition against Judge Christopher Brasher arising from Dixit’s ongoing divorce proceedings, seeking dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, recusal, and vacation of the divorce decree.
- The trial court dismissed the mandamus petition, finding Dixit had an adequate remedy by appeal and thus could not obtain mandamus relief.
- Dixit attempted a direct appeal from that dismissal to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals determined it lacked jurisdiction because Dixit was required to pursue discretionary review under OCGA § 5-6-35 for orders arising from divorce cases.
- Dixit had previously filed and had other related appeals dismissed as interlocutory while various post-judgment motions (new trial, attorney fees) remained pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper appellate procedure for orders arising from divorce proceedings | Dixit sought mandamus to challenge the trial judge’s actions and obtain relief without using discretionary appeal | Court (and Brasher by implication) argued issues arising from divorce must proceed by application for discretionary review under OCGA § 5-6-35 | The Court of Appeals held the underlying subject matter is divorce, so discretionary review was required; direct appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Availability of mandamus to circumvent discretionary review | Dixit contended mandamus was an appropriate extraordinary remedy to obtain relief from the judge’s orders | Court held mandamus cannot be used to avoid the statutorily mandated discretionary review process for divorce-related orders | Held that mandamus cannot substitute for the discretionary-review procedure; mandamus petition properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467 (1994) (underlying subject matter controls proper appellate procedure; use OCGA § 5-6-35 when applicable)
- Russo v. Manning, 252 Ga. 155 (1984) (appeals ancillary to divorce proceedings fall under discretionary-review statute)
- Self v. Bayneum, 265 Ga. 14 (1994) (party seeking relief from divorce orders must use discretionary review; mandamus cannot circumvent it)
- Walker v. Estate of Mays, 279 Ga. 652 (2005) (reaffirming limits on mandamus to bypass discretionary appellate procedures)
- Stone v. Stone, 295 Ga. App. 783 (2009) (noting mandamus cannot avoid discretionary review in divorce-related appeals)