Jayla Morrow v. Pac Green Park LLC, D/B/A Green Park

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
March 31, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26D0427. JAYLA MORROW v. PAC GREEN PARK LLC, d/b/a GREEN
PARK

PAC Green Park, LLC, d/b/a Green Park filed a dispossessory action against
Jayla Morrow in magistrate court. On March 13, 2026, the magistrate court signed an
order granting Green Park a writ of possession. Morrow then filed this application for
discretionary appeal on March 20, 2026. 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) (citation modified). 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 timely notice of appeal, it is
hereby TRANSFERRED to the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County with direction
to transmit it to the state or superior court of DeKalb County 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 state or superior 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
Morrow has not perfected her right to appeal or that jurisdiction lies elsewhere.