Ebony Wade v. Prcp-Atlanta Canopy Avondale, LLC D/B/A Canopy Glen

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
March 31, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26D0430. EBONY WADE v. PRCP-ATLANTA CANOPY AVONDALE, LLC
d/b/a CANOPY GLEN.

The plaintiff in this case filed a dispossessory action against Ebony Wade in the
Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County. On March 19, 2026, the magistrate court
granted the plaintiff a writ of possession, and Wade filed this application for
discretionary appeal the next day. We lack jurisdiction.
Ordinarily, “the only avenue of appeal available from a magistrate court
judgment is provided by OCGA § 15-10-41(b)(1), which allows for a de novo appeal
to the state or superior court.” Tate v. Habif, 367 Ga. App. 435, 438-39(2) (886 SE2d
389) (2023) (punctuation omitted). Thus, this Court has jurisdiction to address a
magistrate court order only if the order has been reviewed by a state or superior court.
See Harris v. Reserve at Hollywood LLC, 376 Ga. App. 553, 553 (920 SE2d 163) (2025).
The Georgia Constitution, however, provides that “[a]ny court shall transfer to the
appropriate court in the state any civil case in which it determines that jurisdiction or
venue lies elsewhere.” Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. VIII; accord Court of
Appeals Rule 11(b).
Thus, to the extent that the filing of this discretionary application may be
construed as a notice of appeal, it is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Magistrate Court
of Gwinnett County with direction to transmit it to the state or superior court for
disposition as appropriate.1

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
03/31/2026
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.

1
We recognize that we are in possession of limited material and that our
determination that jurisdiction may lie in another court is limited by the dearth of
information. Thus, our ruling should not constrain either the magistrate court or the
state or superior court to the extent those courts determine either that Wade has not
perfected her right to appeal or that jurisdiction lies elsewhere.