London Mariah Langston v. Arep Warden Qoz LLC D/B/A the Hawkins

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
May 08, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26D0501. LONDON MARIAH LANGSTON v. AREP WARDEN QOZ LLC
d/b/a THE HAWKINS.

The plaintiff in this case filed a dispossessory action against London Mariah
Langston in the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County. The magistrate court granted
the plaintiff a writ of possession on May 1, 2026, and Langston filed this application
for discretionary appeal on May 5, 2026. 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) (punctuation omitted). 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).
Thus, to the extent that the filing of this discretionary application may be
construed as a notice of appeal, it is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Magistrate Court
of DeKalb County with direction to transmit it to the state or superior court for
disposition as appropriate.1

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.

1
We recognize that we are in possession of limited material and that our
determination that jurisdiction may lie in another court is limited by the dearth of
information. Thus, our ruling should not constrain either the magistrate court or the
state or superior court to the extent those courts determine either that Langston has
not perfected the right to appeal or that jurisdiction lies elsewhere.