In a recent ruling, the Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal filed by Ann Buckingham, formerly known as Ann Doss, against her ex-husband Andrew Doss. The court's decision came on October 28, 2026, in the case identified by docket number A27D0231. This ruling affects Buckingham's attempts to challenge a trial court order related to the service of a third-party defendant in their post-divorce proceedings.

The case revolves around a dispute following the couple's divorce. Buckingham sought to appeal an amended order from the trial court that corrected a clerical error regarding the responsibility for serving a third-party defendant. The court's decision is significant as it highlights the procedural requirements necessary for appealing certain types of orders in domestic relations cases.

In the underlying dispute, Buckingham had previously filed a request for release from incarceration, which the trial court denied in its December 22, 2025 order. This order also indicated that the court would reserve ruling on other matters until the service on the third-party defendant was perfected. The clarification made in the amended order was crucial as it specified that Andrew Doss was responsible for serving this defendant.

The case reached the Court of Appeals after Buckingham filed a timely application for discretionary appeal from the amended order. However, the court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court explained that under Georgia law, specifically OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(2), an application for discretionary review is typically required in domestic relations cases. In this instance, the court found that the amended order was considered interlocutory because it did not resolve all pending issues.

The court stated, "The trial court’s amended order to perfect service... is interlocutory because the trial court explicitly reserved ruling on other matters..." This means that until the service was perfected and the outstanding issues were resolved, Buckingham's appeal could not proceed.

Furthermore, the court referenced previous cases to clarify its stance. It noted that a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order must comply with additional requirements, specifically OCGA § 5-6-34(b). Since Buckingham did not follow this procedure, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

This ruling has implications for Buckingham and potentially for others in similar situations. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural rules when appealing orders in domestic relations cases. Failure to comply with these rules can result in the dismissal of an appeal, leaving the parties without a means to challenge court decisions effectively.

The dismissal of this appeal means that Buckingham remains bound by the trial court's orders, including the decision regarding her incarceration and the responsibility for serving the third-party defendant. The court's ruling also serves as a reminder to individuals involved in domestic relations disputes to be vigilant about following legal procedures to ensure their rights are protected.

Looking ahead, Buckingham may have the option to pursue further legal avenues, but the court's ruling indicates that she must first comply with the necessary procedural requirements for any future appeals. The court filing did not provide details on whether there are related cases pending or if Buckingham plans to take additional legal action.