Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22D0261. TATYANA ELLIS et al. v. KENNETH LEIGH SEAVER.

Tatyana Ellis (“Wife”) and Troy Ellis (“New Husband”) seek discretionary

review of the trial court’s denial of their motion to recuse in this domestic relations

case. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Wife and Kenneth Seaver (“Husband”) were divorced in 2014. Thereafter, they

filed a number of motions, including Wife’s motion to set aside part of the divorce

decree and both parties’ motions for contempt and for a modification of custody and

child support. In March 2019, the trial court entered an order declining to set aside

the decree or to modify custody, ordering Wife to pay child support, finding Wife in

contempt, and directing her to pay Husband’s attorney fees. Wife filed a discretionary

application seeking review of the order’s non-custody rulings, but we denied the

application. See Case No. A19D0438 (May 15, 2019). Wife also filed a direct appeal

from the custody portion of the order. We affirmed the trial court. See Case No.

A20A0231 (Apr. 29, 2020).

Back in the trial court, Wife—who had since remarried New Husband—filed

an “omnibus motion” that, among other things, sought to set aside the March 2019

order. New Husband filed a similar omnibus motion, as well as a motion to intervene,

and both Wife and New Husband filed motions to recuse both the trial court judge

and the entire Cobb Judicial Circuit. In September 2021, the trial court entered orders

denying or dismissing all of these motions. Wife and New Husband filed an

application for discretionary appeal, which we denied. See Case No. A22D0110

(Nov. 9, 2021). 

March 14, 2022
Wife and New Husband then filed a motion to set aside the September 2021

order denying their omnibus motions.

1 The trial court denied this motion, ruling that

“[n]one of the grounds specifically set out in OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) have been shown

to exist[.]” Wife and New Husband also filed another motion to recuse the trial court

judge, alleging that they have a pending mandamus action against her and she has

demonstrated bias against them. The trial court also denied this motion. Wife and

New Husband now seek discretionary review of the order denying their motion to

recuse. They do not challenge the order denying their latest motion to set aside. 

Wife and New Husband characterize the recusal order as “interlocutory.” If this

is accurate, then Wife and New Husband were required to file an application for

interlocutory appeal, which they have not done. See Ellis v. Stanford, 256 Ga. App.

294, 295 (2) (568 SE2d 157) (2002) (“Denials of motions to recuse are interlocutory

in nature. An appeal of such an order requires compliance with the interlocutory

appeal provisions of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).”). 

However, the recusal order appearsto be final, asWife and New Husband point

to nothing pending before the trial court in the case below. See Nance v. Houston

County School Dist., 359 Ga. App. 204, 205 (857 SE2d 97) (2021) (an order is final

when “the case is no longer pending in the court below”). Under OCGA § 5-6-48 (b)

(3) an appeal will be dismissed “[w]here the questions presented have become moot.”

If there is nothing left for the trial court to rule upon, then the recusal issue is moot.

See Carlock v. Kmart Corp., 227 Ga. App. 356, 361 (3) (a) (489 SE2d 99) (1997) (a

matter is moot if it “cannot have any practical effect on the existing controversy”). 

1 Wife and New Husband have not included this motion with their application

materials.
In sum, the recusal order is either interlocutory, because the case remains

pending below; or moot, because it does not. In either circumstance, we lack

jurisdiction. This application is therefore DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

03/14/2022