Elizabeth Jordan v. Jeffery May

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
April 29, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26A0663. ELIZABETH JORDAN v. JEFFERY MAY.

In this stalking protective order case, the trial court issued an order on
September 11, 2025, in which it: (i) denied plaintiff Elizabeth Jordan’s January 2024
“Amended Motion for New Trial”; (ii) found Jordan in contempt of a prior order
awarding $5,000 in attorney fees to defendant Jeffery May; and (iii) denied May’s
February 2024 motion for OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney fees. At that time, Jordan was
represented by attorney Taylor Howard. On September 19, 2025, Jordan filed a timely
pro se notice of appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-38(a). On October 2, 2025, Howard filed a
motion to withdraw from her representation of Jordan. The trial court granted
Howard’s motion to withdraw on October 15, 2025. For the reasons that follow, we
lack jurisdiction over this pro se appeal.
Contempt rulings generally are directly appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(2).
See Hamilton Cap. Group v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., 266 Ga. App. 1, 2–3(1) (596
SE2d 656) (2004). A layperson, however, may not represent herself and also be
represented by an attorney. Romich v. All Secure, Inc., 361 Ga. App. 505, 505 (863 SE2d
179) (2021). And “a formal withdrawal of counsel cannot be accomplished until after
the trial court issues an order permitting the withdrawal.” Id. (quotation marks
omitted). Consequently, Jordan’s pro se notice of appeal is a nullity, as she was
represented by counsel when she filed it. See Weinstock v. Small, 378 Ga. App. 319,
320 (925 SE2d 760) (2026) (“[A] pro se notice of appeal filed by a represented party
in a civil case[ ] is a legal nullity and does not confer appellate jurisdiction to this
Court.”); Romich, 361 Ga. App. at 505 (dismissing appeal because the appellant’s pro
se notice of appeal, filed while she was represented by counsel, was a nullity). We
therefore lack jurisdiction to consider this pro se appeal, which is hereby
DISMISSED. See Weinstock, 378 Ga. App. at 320; Romich, 361 Ga. App. at 505.
May’s motion to dismiss this appeal for other reasons is hereby DENIED as
MOOT.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
04/29/2026
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.