← LexyCorpus index

LexyCorpus case page

CourtListener opinion 4908539

Citation: domestic relations order · Date unknown · US

Extracted case name
ANNA SINCLAIR-JAMISON v. DEMETRISE PINKERTON
Extracted reporter citation
domestic relations order
Docket / number
pending
QDRO relevance 5/5Retirement relevance 2/5Family-law relevance 5/5gold label pending
Research-use warning: This page contains machine-draft public annotations generated from public opinion text. The headnote is not Willie-approved gold-label work product and is not legal advice. Verify the full opinion and current law before relying on it.

Machine-draft headnote

Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4908539 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.

Retrieval annotation

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.

Category: QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues

Evidence quotes

domestic relations order

not award, refuse to change, or modify custody; nor does it hold or decline to hold a person in contempt of such an order. It simply vacates a prior order declining to hold a person in contempt, and it schedules further proceedings. Because the interlocutory domestic relations order that Sinclair-Jamison wishes to appeal does not come within the ambit of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), she was required to file an interlocutory application to obtain appellate review at this juncture. Her failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996);

Source and provenance

Source type
courtlistener_qdro_opinion_full_text
Permissions posture
public
Generated status
machine draft public v0
Review status
gold label pending
Jurisdiction metadata
US
Deterministic extraction
reporter: domestic relations order
Generated at
May 14, 2026

Related public corpus pages

Deterministic links based on shared title/citation terms and QDRO / retirement / family-law retrieval scores.

Clean opinion text

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

 ATLANTA,____________________
 September 02, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0202. ANNA SINCLAIR-JAMISON v. DEMETRISE PINKERTON.

 Anna Sinclair-Jamison and Demetrise Pinkerton are the parents of minor child
J. S.-P. In a prior action, the trial court awarded custody of J. S.-P. to Sinclair-Jamison
and granted visitation to Pinkerton. Pinkerton filed this petition seeking to hold
Sinclair-Jamison in contempt for willfully interfering with his visitation. The trial
court entered a final order denying Pinkerton's petition, and he filed a "Motion to Set
Aside, for Reconsideration, and/or Clarification" of that order. The trial court granted
Pinkerton's motion without explanation, set aside its prior order, and scheduled a
hearing. Sinclair-Jamison appeals, claiming that this Court has jurisdiction under
OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11).
 A party seeking review of an order entered in a domestic relations case
generally must file an application for discretionary appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a)
(2). When the case remains pending in the trial court, the party generally must satisfy
the additional requirements for an interlocutory application, including obtaining a
certificate of immediate review from the trial court and complying with the time
limitations of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).
 Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), however, a direct appeal is permitted from
"[a]ll judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing to change, or
modifying child custody or holding or declining to hold persons in contempt of such
child custody judgments or orders." It is well established that visitation privileges are
part of custody, see Moore v. Moore-McKinney, 297 Ga. App. 703, 705 (1) (678 SE2d
152) (2009), and that interlocutory custody orders may be appealed directly. See Lacy
v. Lacy, 320 Ga. App. 739, 742 (3) (740 SE2d 695) (2013). Nevertheless, the order
 on appeal here does not fall within the scope of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) because it
is not a custody order. It does not award, refuse to change, or modify custody; nor
does it hold or decline to hold a person in contempt of such an order. It simply
vacates a prior order declining to hold a person in contempt, and it schedules further
proceedings.
 Because the interlocutory domestic relations order that Sinclair-Jamison wishes
to appeal does not come within the ambit of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), she was
required to file an interlocutory application to obtain appellate review at this juncture.
Her failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby
DISMISSED. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996); Scruggs
v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991).

 Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
 Clerk's Office, Atlanta,____________________
 09/02/2021
 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.