NEW ZION BAPTIST CHURCH OF ATLANTA, INC. v. DONALD R. MADDEN

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
May 08, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26A1859. NEW ZION BAPTIST CHURCH OF ATLANTA, INC. et al v.
DONALD R. MADDEN.
A26A1865. DONALD R. MADDEN v. NEW ZION BAPTIST CHURCH OF
ATLANTA, INC. et al.

On March 2, 2026, the trial court issued an order in which it (1) made findings
regarding the ownership of certain real property and provided for the disposition of
the property; (2) awarded $25,750 in damages and $1,943.98 in post-judgment interest
to the plaintiffs, New Zion Baptist Church of Atlanta, Inc., and Robert Paul Hollman;
(3) denied the plaintiffs’ other claims; and (4) reserved the determination of pre-
judgment interest, gave the parties ten days to provide their calculations for such
interest, and stated that it would supplement its order with the correct amount of such
interest. On March 24, 2026, the defendant, Donald R. Madden, filed a direct appeal,
which has been docketed as Case No. A26A1865. On March 27, 2026, the plaintiffs
filed a direct appeal, which has been docketed as Case No. A26A1859. We lack
jurisdiction over both appeals, because there is no indication that the trial court has
resolved the issue of pre-judgment interest.
As a general rule, a right of direct appeal lies from only a final judgment — that
is, where the case is no longer pending below. See OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(1); Yanes v.
Escobar, 362 Ga. App. 896, 897 (870 SE2d 506) (2022) (“[A]n order is final and
appealable when it leaves no issues remaining to be resolved, constitutes the court’s
final ruling on the merits of the action, and leaves the parties with no further recourse
in the trial court.”). See also Sotter v. Stephens, 291 Ga. 79, 83, (727 SE2d 484) (2012)
(“A judgment that reserves the calculation of the amount of damages is considered
interlocutory in nature and does not become final until the amount is determined.”).
For a party to obtain appellate review when the case is still pending below, there must
be either an express determination by the trial court that there is no just reason for
delay under OCGA § 9-11-54(b) or compliance with the interlocutory appeal
requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34(b). Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., 192 Ga. App. 628,
629 (385 SE2d 731) (1989). Where neither code section is followed, the appeal is
premature and must be dismissed. Id.
Here, the issue of pre-judgment interest has yet to be determined, and thus the
case remains pending below. Further, the trial court did not direct an entry of
judgment under OCGA § 9-11-54(b). Accordingly, the parties were required to
comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34(b), including
obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court, in order to obtain
appellate review. See Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551(2) (787 SE2d 731) (2016).
The parties’ failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures deprives us of
jurisdiction over these appeals, which are hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
05/08/2026
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.