The Georgia Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal by Mark A. Ebhohimen in a property dispute with Realistry Acquisitions, LLC. The court ruled that Ebhohimen did not follow the proper procedures to appeal a non-final order regarding the possession of two properties. This decision affects Ebhohimen and could have implications for similar cases involving dispossessory proceedings in the state.

The case, docketed as A27D0203, began in magistrate court, where Realistry Acquisitions was awarded writs of possession for two properties. The court required Ebhohimen to pay monthly amounts into the court registry starting August 1, 2026, as a condition for his appeal. After failing to make these payments, Realistry sought immediate possession of the properties, leading to further legal actions.

Ebhohimen, who represented himself in the case, filed a petition for review in the superior court after the magistrate court's ruling. Realistry then moved for an immediate writ of possession due to Ebhohimen's failure to comply with the payment order. On August 7, 2026, the superior court granted Realistry's motion, issuing writs of possession for both properties. However, after Ebhohimen made payments on August 13, the court stayed its earlier ruling and scheduled a hearing.

Following the hearing, the superior court found that the checks submitted by Ebhohimen had bounced due to insufficient funds. Consequently, on September 25, 2026, the court lifted the stay and granted an immediate writ of possession to Realistry. Ebhohimen then filed an application for discretionary review of this order, but the Court of Appeals ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

The court explained that the September 25 order was a non-final order because it did not resolve all issues in the case, specifically Realistry's pending counterclaim for past-due rent and attorney fees. The court cited previous cases to support its ruling, stating, "Consequently, the September 25 order was a non-final order that did not resolve all issues in this case." This meant that Ebhohimen needed to follow specific procedures for interlocutory review, which he failed to do.

The Court of Appeals reiterated that where both discretionary and interlocutory review procedures apply, an applicant must adhere to the interlocutory appeal process and obtain a timely certificate of immediate review from the trial court. Because Ebhohimen did not comply with these requirements, the court dismissed his application for discretionary review.

This ruling has significant implications for Ebhohimen, who now faces the immediate loss of possession of the properties in question. It also serves as a reminder to other individuals involved in similar legal disputes about the importance of following proper legal procedures when appealing court decisions.

Looking ahead, this case may set a precedent for how courts handle dispossessory proceedings and appeals in Georgia. It emphasizes the necessity for litigants to understand and comply with procedural rules to protect their rights in court. The ruling could also influence how future cases are approached, particularly those involving self-represented parties.

As for what happens next, it remains unclear if Ebhohimen will seek further legal action or if he will attempt to resolve the underlying issues with Realistry Acquisitions. There is no indication in the court filing about whether he plans to appeal this dismissal or if there are any related cases pending.