Stephen L. Self v. Anita C. Serrato, A17D0311

Trial court entered final divorce decree on May 13, 2014.
In 2016 the trial court found Stephen L. Self in contempt and awarded Anita C. Serrato attorney fees under OCGA §§ 9-15-14 and 19-6-2.
Self filed a motion for new trial; the trial court denied it on January 24, 2017 and reserved the attorney-fee issue.
Self then filed an application for discretionary appeal to the Court of Appeals on March 27, 2017.
Self did not include a file‑stamped copy of his motion for new trial (or any responses) with his application, as required by Court of Appeals Rule 31(e) and OCGA § 5-6-35(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over Self’s discretionary application	Self implicitly contends the application is timely because he filed after denial of his motion for new trial	Serrato argues Self failed to show timeliness and did not include required filings	Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Self failed to show timeliness by omitting the file-stamped motion for new trial
Whether an untimely motion for new trial tolls the appeal period	Self relies on having filed a motion for new trial to extend appellate time	Serrato and court note motion must be filed within 30 days to toll time; untimely motion is void	Untimely motion does not toll appeal period; it is void (no extension)
Whether reservation of attorney-fee issue affects finality of the order	Self may have argued order was final despite reservation	Serrato points out reservation may affect finality depending on statute under which fees are sought	Court observed reservation does not render order non-final if fees are sought under OCGA § 9-15-14; otherwise finality may be affected and interlocutory procedures would apply
Whether Self should have used interlocutory appeal procedures if order not final	Self filed a discretionary application	Serrato argues interlocutory requirements apply when order is non-final	Court noted discretionary appeal does not excuse compliance with interlocutory appeal requirements when necessary

In the Interest of B. R. F., 299 Ga. 294 (2016) (timeliness requirement for applications for discretionary appeal)
Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734 (1989) (timeliness of appellate filings)
Wright v. Rhodes, 198 Ga. App. 269 (1990) (untimely motion for new trial is void and does not toll appeal time)
Harper v. Harper, 259 Ga. 246 (1989) (applicant bears burden to show application should be granted)
Hill v. Buttram, 255 Ga. App. 123 (2002) (reservation of OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney fee issue does not extend time to appeal)
CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480 (2011) (pending attorney-fee claim can render an order non-final)
Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832 (1996) (discretionary appeal statute does not excuse compliance with interlocutory appeal requirements)