Brown v. Frachiseur

• Decision Date: 15 April 1981
• Docket Number: No. 36981,36981
• Citation: 247 Ga. 463,277 S.E.2d 16
• Parties: BROWN v. FRACHISEUR.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 16

277 S.E.2d 16

247 Ga. 463

BROWN v. FRACHISEUR.

No. 36981.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 15, 1981.

William Boyd Lyons, William Boyd Lyons, P. A., Atlanta, for S. C. Brown.

Fred D. Bentley, Sr., Marietta, for Mary Brown Frachiseur.

SMITH, Justice.

Appellant and appellee are brother and sister. Appellant filed a caveat to the will of their deceased brother which appellee, as executrix, had offered for probate. The will was probated in solemn form, and appellant appealed to the superior court for de novo review pursuant to Code Ann. §§ 6-201 and 6-501. The superior court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment based on the probate court record. Appellant appeals contending that summary judgment in favor of appellee was erroneous. We affirm.

Generally, the same procedural rules apply in a de novo review as in any other civil case before the trial court. See Woodall v. First National Bank of Columbus, 118 Ga.App. 440, 164 S.E.2d 361 (1968). Thus, where the probate court record is properly before the superior court (see Code Ann. § 6-501), it may be considered by the court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Taylor v. Donaldson, 227 Ga. 496, 181 S.E.2d 340 (1971); In Interest of Smith, 143 Ga.App. 358, 238 S.E.2d 725 (1977). If the movant establishes that he is entitled to summary judgment based upon the probate court record, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to show a genuine issue of material fact. See Richards v. Tolbert, 232 Ga. 678, 208 S.E.2d 486 (1974); Baker v. Citizens & Southern National Bank, 147 Ga.App. 188, 248 S.E.2d 224 (1978); CPA § 56 (Code Ann. § 81A-156).

While, at trial, the party moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, it is well settled that, on appeal, the burden is on the appellant to establish error. See, e. g., Tanis v. Tanis, 240 Ga. 718, 242 S.E.2d 71 (1978); Buford v. Buford, 234 Ga. 700, 217 S.E.2d 160 (1975). In order for the appellate court to determine whether the grant of summary judgment was erroneous, the appellant must include in the record those items which will enable the appellate court to ascertain whether a genuine issue of material fact remains or, if the record establishes there is no such issue of fact, whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Frost v. Gasaway, 229 Ga. 354, 190 S.E.2d 902 (1972); Anderson v. Columbus, 152 Ga.App. 772, 264 S.E.2d 251 (1979); Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 1209 (9th Cir. 1980).

In the instant case, the transcript of the probate court proceedings is essential to making the above determinations. Appellant, however, chose to omit this transcript from the record on appeal. Since appellant has failed to meet his burden of showing error, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.

Our position is bolstered by Code Ann. § 6-805(c), which provides in pertinent part: "(W)here an appeal (is) taken which draws in question the transcript of the evidence and proceedings, it shall be the duty of the appellant to have the transcript prepared at his expense ..." ¹ Thus, where the transcript is necessary for review and appellant omits it from the record on appeal, the appellate court must assume the judgment below was correct and affirm. See McAllister v. City of Jonesboro, 242 Ga. 95, 249 S.E.2d 565 (1978); Brooks v. Home Credit Co., 128 Ga.App. 176, 196 S.E.2d 176 (1973).

Code Ann. § 6-809(b) does not, in our view, lead to a different result. The statute is concerned with dismissals of appeals. Code Ann. § 6-809(b) does not prohibit an affirmance on the ground that the appellant failed to present the appellate court with a record sufficient to enable it to determine whether the trial court has committed reversible error. See Aviation Electronics Inc. v. U. S. Energy Conservation Systems, Inc., 242 Ga. 224, 248 S.E.2d 610 (1978). Clearly it is not the function of the appellate court to prosecute an appeal on appellant's behalf. To the extent that Holloway v....