Stedman Watson v. Perennial Properties LLC D/B/A Monroe Place Apartments

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA,____________________
February 05, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26D0328. STEDMAN WATSON v. PERENNIAL PROPERTIES LLC d/b/a
MONROE PLACE APARTMENTS.

Perennial Properties LLC d/b/a Monroe Place Apartments filed a dispossessory
action against Stedman Watson in magistrate court. The magistrate court granted
Perennial Properties a writ of possession, and Watson filed this application for
discretionary appeal. We lack jurisdiction.
Ordinarily, the only avenue of appeal available from a magistrate court
judgment is provided by OCGA § 15-10-41(b), which provides for appellate review in
the state or superior court. See Tate v. Habif, 367 Ga. App. 435, 438–39(2) (886 SE2d
389) (2023). 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).
To the extent this filing may be construed as a notice of appeal, it is hereby
TRANSFERRED to the Magistrate Court of Fulton County with direction to transmit
the case to the state or superior court of Fulton County for disposition as appropriate.1

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
02/05/2026
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 the magistrate court or the state
or superior court to the extent those courts determine either that Watson has not
perfected a right to appeal or that those courts lack jurisdiction.