Cousins Mortg. & Equity Investments v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 14 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 55891,56042 and 56043,s. 55891 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | COUSINS MORTGAGE & EQUITY INVESTMENTS v. HAMILTON et al. SPENCER v. COUSINS MORTGAGE & EQUITY INVESTMENTS. HAMILTON v. COUSINS MORTGAGE & EQUITY INVESTMENTS. |
Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, William G. McDaniel, Atlanta, for Cousins Mortgage & Equity Investments.
Leon L. Rice, III, Jessee, Ritchie & Duncan, Jeffrey L. Sakas, Atlanta, for appellees in No. 55891.
Jeffrey L. Sakas, Leon L. Rice, III, Atlanta, for appellant in No. 56042.
Leon L. Rice, III, Atlanta, for appellant in No. 56043.
We have examined this case and while we would be inclined to sustain the grants of summary judgment to Cousins (see Emerson v. Cousins Mtg. etc. Investments, 145 Ga.App. 883, 244 S.E.2d 890), we do not reach the merits of these cases because of the laches attaching to defendants below, Spencer and Hamilton.
On June 7, 1977, Cousins Mortgage & Equity Investments (CMEI) obtained summary judgments against Spencer and Hamilton based upon separate $100,000 notes executed individually by Spencer and Hamilton to CMEI. Hamilton filed a notice of appeal with the trial court on June 8, 1977 (Case No. 56043). Spencer's notice of appeal was filed on June 16, 1977 (Case No. 56042). Notices for bills of cost were mailed to the defendants' attorneys on August 26, 1977. No action was taken by either Spencer or Hamilton to pay those costs or to file a pauper's affidavit as required by Ga.L.1965, pp. 18, 24 (Code Ann. § 6-805(c)) and Ga.L.1965, pp. 18, 29 (Code Ann. § 6-809(b)) as amended. One hundred nineteen days after the entry of the summary judgments and sixty-one days after the mailing of notice of costs due, CMEI, on October 27, 1977, filed motions to dismiss the appeals of both Spencer and Hamilton for unreasonable and inexcusable delay in transmitting the record to this court due to the failure to pay costs. After the passage of 49 additional days from the filing of the motion to dismiss by CMEI and 191 days after the entry of summary judgment, Spencer and Hamilton filed an answer to the motion to dismiss and tendered costs on December 15, 1977. The answer of each defendant stated that the reason costs had not been paid was because after the notices of appeals had been filed, each defendant had been criminally indicted for violations of the Georgia Securities Act. Their excuse was that while they each had adequate funds to pay costs when the notices of appeals had been filed, the additional costs in retaining an attorney to represent them in the criminal proceeding had temporarily rendered them financially unable to pay the costs in the civil suit on appeal. Notwithstanding their asserted inability to pay costs due to their temporary indigency, neither defendant filed the required pauper's affidavit. On December 16, 1977, the trial court found the explanation reasonable and denied the motion to dismiss the appeal. We are constrained to observe that notwithstanding this procedural red flag of warning, Spencer and Hamilton allowed the record to remain in the jurisdiction of the trial court yet another 70 days until the record was filed with this court on April 10, 1978. While the clerk of the superior court accepts responsibility for this last 70 days, the fact remains that the record and briefs in this case were not received in this court until 10 months after summary judgments were entered in the case. CMEI has appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss the appeals of Hamilton and Spencer (Case No. 55891). Held:
It is apparent that Hamilton and Spencer made a deliberate choice to abandon temporarily the appeal of their civil cases and expend their efforts and money in defense of pending criminal cases. They had a choice to seek financial relief through pauper's affidavits either in the civil case or in the criminal case. They elected to seek such relief in neither case but simply abandoned the civil appeals until forced to make a belated response to CMEI's motion to dismiss.
Based upon the above, we will hold that the appeal in this case has become stale and that Hamilton and Spencer are barred from further pursuing their appeal by the laches inherent in their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank v. Williams
-
Cook v. McNamee
...change of conditions or otherwise resulting in inequity; or (b) causing the appeal to be stale (see, e.g., Cousins Mtg., etc., v. Hamilton, 147 Ga.App. 210, 248 S.E.2d 516), such as, by delaying just disposition of the case, by preventing placement of the case on the earliest possible appel......
-
Carbonara v. Fortress Grp., Inc.
...in the lower court and who is entitled to his judgment unless the case is properly reversed." Cousins Mortg. & Equity Investments v. Hamilton , 147 Ga. App. 210, 212, 248 S.E.2d 516 (1978). We therefore reverse the trial court's judgment in Case No. A20A2035. See Newton , 353 Ga. App. at 70......
-
Bass v. Mercer
...change of conditions or otherwise resulting in inequity; or (b) causing the appeal to be stale (see, e.g., Cousins Mtg. &c. v. Hamilton, 147 Ga.App. 210, 248 S.E.2d 516), such as, by delaying just disposition of the case, by preventing placement of the case on the earliest possible appellat......