Tyra Dixon v. Darwin Homes LLC as Agent for Ameriprop Sfr Property Owner LLC

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
March 16, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26D0414. TYRA DIXON v. DARWIN HOMES LLC AS AGENT FOR
AMERIPROP SFR PROPERTY OWNER LLC.

Darwin Homes LLC filed a dispossessory action against Tyra Dixon in
magistrate court. On March 10, 2026, the magistrate court granted Darwin Homes a
writ of possession, and Dixon 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)(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 an notice of appeal, it is hereby
TRANSFERRED to the Magistrate Court of Clayton County with direction to
transmit it to the State Court of Clayton County for disposition as appropriate.1

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
03/16/2026
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 court is limited by the dearth of
information. Thus, our ruling should not constrain either the magistrate court or the
state court to the extent those courts determine either that Dixon has not perfected
her right to appeal or that jurisdiction lies elsewhere.