Bennett v. Executive Benefits, Inc., A93A2069
| Decision Date | 30 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. A93A2069,A93A2069 |
| Citation | 210 Ga.App. 429,436 S.E.2d 544 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | BENNETT et al. v. EXECUTIVE BENEFITS, INC. |
William R. Bennett, pro se.
Robert J. Dyes, pro se.
Alston & Bird, Donna P. Bergeson, Duluth, Branch, Pike & Ganz, Cathleen M. Devlin, Robert N. Dokson, Atlanta, for appellee.
This appeal involves just one branch of a multi-faceted action by plaintiffs Bennett and Dyes. The complaint alleges that plaintiffs contracted with defendant Kruse to obtain a health insurance policy, were informed by Kruse that they were covered by a health insurance policy, and repeatedly paid premiums on the policy to Kruse when in fact no policy of insurance on plaintiffs had been issued. Plaintiffs' action is against Kruse, along with multiple insurance companies and agencies. This appeal is taken from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Executive Benefits, Inc. and against plaintiff. Held:
The notice of appeal filed by plaintiffs is not in the form directed by OCGA § 5-6-37 in that, rather than designating portions of the record to be omitted on appeal, plaintiffs have instructed that only items listed on the notice of appeal be included in the record sent to this court. Under the statutory scheme, the notice of appeal provides information concerning omission of portions of the record before the lower court. Nonetheless, after study of the record sent up and communication with the clerk of the court below, it is apparent that under the directions contained in the notice of appeal, some portion of the evidence upon which the superior court relied in this case has been omitted from the record on appeal.
It is well established that the burden is on the party alleging error to show it by the record and that where the proof necessary for determination of the issues on appeal is omitted from the record, an appellate court must assume that the judgment below was correct and affirm. Brown v. Frachiseur, 247 Ga. 463, 277 S.E.2d 16; Jackson v. Dept. of Transp., 201 Ga.App. 863, 865, 412 S.E.2d 847; Transport Indem. Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 198 Ga.App. 265, 266, 401 S.E.2d 294; Riverbend Ford-Mercury v. Kirksey, 196 Ga.App. 307, 309(1), 395 S.E.2d 898; Taylor v. Colwell Mtg. Corp., 187 Ga.App. 397, 370 S.E.2d 520.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Enchanted Valley RV Resort, Ltd. v. Weese
...the record, an appellate court must assume that the judgment below was correct and affirm. (Citations omitted.) Bennett v. Exec. Benefits, 210 Ga.App. 429, 436 S.E.2d 544 (1993). Therefore, this Court affirms the trial court's finding that the election was 2. Defendants contend that the tri......
-
Hooks v. Humphries, A09A1694.
...is omitted from the record, an appellate court must assume that the judgment below was correct and affirm.” Bennett v. Executive Benefits, 210 Ga.App. 429, 436 S.E.2d 544 (1993). See Armstrong v. Rapson, 299 Ga.App. 884, 885, 683 S.E.2d 915 (2009). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's d......
-
Market Place Shopping Center, L.P. v. Basic Business Alternatives, Inc.
...to assure that the record necessary for consideration of the enumeration of errors is presented. Bennett v. Executive Benefits, 210 Ga.App. 429, 436 S.E.2d 544 (1993). In the absence of a full record, we must assume that the trial court ruled correctly, not the opposite. Id.; Wright v. Stat......
-
REGENCY EXECUTIVE PLAZA v. Wilmock, Inc., A98A1746.
...Kirksey, 196 Ga. App. 307, 309(1), 395 S.E.2d 898; Taylor v. Colwell Mtg. Corp., 187 Ga.App. 397, 370 S.E.2d 520. Bennett v. Executive Benefits, 210 Ga.App. 429, 436 S.E.2d 544. "`On consideration of summary judgments we and the trial court must look at the entire record.' Lawson v. Duke Oi......
-
Construction Law - Brian J. Morrissey
...Ga. App. at 140, 433 S.E.2d at 109. 84. 210 Ga. App. 428, 436 S.E.2d 543 (1993). 85. Id. at 428, 436 S.E.2d at 543-44. 86. Id. 87. Id., 436 S.E.2d at 544. 88. Id. 89. Id. Recoupment is a claim or demand of the defendant arising out of the same transaction as that sued on by the plaintiff. S......