Appellant Richard Paul Keck brought a complaint for modification of child support and visitation, and in connection therewith sought a determination from the trial court that Georgia’s Child Support Guidelines, OCGA § 19-6-15, is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, U. S. Const., Art. VI. The case is before the Court from the grant of discretionary review of an order upholding the constitutionality of the guidelines on all grounds asserted. We affirm. 1. The trial court’s order does not constitute a final judgment, as the claim for modification remains pending below. OCGA § 5-6-34 a 1. The trial court denied Keck’s “motion to declare Georgia’s child support guidelines unconstitutional” and also denied a motion for reconsideration. A motion to declare a statute unconstitutional is an appropriate means of raising that issue. See Ward v. McFall , __Ga.__ Case Number S03A1365, decided March 1, 2004; Dill v. Dill , 232 Ga. 231 206 SE2d 6 1974. However, an interlocutory order denying such a motion is appealable only when the trial court issues a certificate of immediate review and this Court grants an interlocutory appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 b. See Ward v. McFall , supra; Dill v. Dill , supra; Lane v. Morrison , 226 Ga. 526, 527 175 SE2d 830 1970.
The trial court purported to certify its order as final pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-54 b. For that subsection of the Civil Practice Act to apply, however, the order must be a “judgment” in the sense that it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief, and it must be “final” in the sense that it is “an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” Cit. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co. , 446 U. S. 1, 7 100 SC 1460, 64 LE2d 1 1980 construing the identical provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 b. “An order on a collateral issue such as the manner of the adjudication of the claims cannot be a judgment under” OCGA § 9-11-54 b. 10 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 54.22 2 a ii 3d ed.. The trial court’s order here did not dispose of any claim, but only determined that Keck’s single claim for modification would be resolved in accordance with OCGA § 19-6-15. See Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wall , 242 Ga. 176, 177 1 249 SE2d 588 1978.
