Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548

Parties married 29 years; one child minor at time of divorce proceedings. Wife filed for divorce; husband filed counterclaim and both sought attorney’s fees.
Trial court entered an order titled “Final Order of Divorce” on March 5, 2014, granting the divorce but expressly reserving attorney’s fees for later determination.
Husband filed a notice of appeal of the March 5 order on March 25, 2014, then, with new counsel, moved for reconsideration during the term of court.
The trial court held a hearing and entered a nunc pro tunc order on September 10, 2014 modifying the March 5 order; it later resolved attorney’s fees in a separate order on September 19, 2014.
Wife moved to vacate the September 10 order as void, arguing husband’s earlier notice of appeal had operated as supersedeas and divested the trial court of jurisdiction; husband contended his notice of appeal was ineffective because he did not pay trial‑court costs and, in any event, interlocutory appeal procedures were not followed.
The trial court denied the motion to vacate; wife sought discretionary review in the Supreme Court of Georgia, which affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Islamkhan)	Defendant's Argument (Khan)	Held
Was the March 5, 2014 divorce decree final or interlocutory?	March 5 order was final because it was labeled “Final Order of Divorce.”	Order was interlocutory because it reserved attorney’s fees.	Interlocutory: reservation of attorney’s fees made the order nonfinal.
Did Khan’s notice of appeal operate as supersedeas and divest the trial court of jurisdiction?	Yes — the notice of appeal attached supersedeas and rendered subsequent modification void.	No — appeal procedures for interlocutory orders (OCGA § 5-6-34(b)) were not followed, so the notice was nugatory.	No supersedeas: appeal procedures for interlocutory orders were not followed, so the notice was ineffective.
What is effect of failing to obtain certificate of immediate review before appealing an interlocutory order?	N/A (issue framed by court)	N/A	Failure to obtain required certificate and appellate order renders attempt to appeal nugatory and does not confer appellate jurisdiction.
May trial court act on motion for reconsideration while an interlocutory appeal attempt is pending but unauthorized?	N/A	N/A	Trial court retains jurisdiction; its reconsideration and modification were valid.

Sapp v. Sapp, 294 Ga. 435 (reservation of an issue (e.g., attorney’s fees) makes a divorce decree interlocutory)
Miller v. Miller, 288 Ga. 274 (interlocutory nature of decrees reserving issues)
Cherry v. Coast House, Ltd., 257 Ga. 403 (interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34(b) are jurisdictional)
Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357 (unauthorized notice of appeal has no legal effect and does not divest trial court of jurisdiction)
State v. Cash, 298 Ga. 90 (appeal rights depend on statutory authorization)
Gable v. State, 290 Ga. 81 (statutory interlocutory-appeal requirements must be satisfied; appellate jurisdiction not conferred otherwise)