Department of Human Resources v. Patillo, A90A1482
| Decision Date | 04 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A1482,A90A1482 |
| Citation | 196 Ga.App. 778,397 S.E.2d 47 |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. PATILLO. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., William C. Joy, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., William M. Droze, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Bush, Wallace & Craig, Daniel J. Craig, Augusta, for appellee.
This case previously appeared in this court as Georgia Dept. of Human Resources v. Patillo, 194 Ga.App. 279, 390 S.E.2d 431 (1990), which this court reversed and remanded with instruction that the trial court make findings of fact to ascertain the reasonableness and excusableness of counsel's delay in timely filing a trial transcript for purposes of appeal. The Georgia Department of Human Resources brings this appeal from the dismissal of its appeal after the trial court made findings of fact and held that the delay was unreasonable and inexcusable. Held:
The court below found that one of appellant's counsel telephoned the court reporter in October 1988 requesting preparation of a transcript, and took no further action to assure that it was prepared and filed until after the time for filing had expired. The court further found that the delay was caused by the division of work between two attorneys in the District Attorney's office who were assigned to the case, and that neither had assumed responsibility to assure the timely filing of a transcript or to request an extension of time. The court concluded that the delay was more unreasonable and inexcusable than in Baker v. Southern R. Co., 192 Ga.App. 444, 385 S.E.2d 125 (1989), remanded, 260 Ga. 115, 390 S.E.2d 576 (1990), because of the four-month failure to make any effort to secure a transcript and the assumption that a transcript need not be filed until the case was docketed in this court. In Baker, the transcript was filed 34 days after the expiration of the statutory filing period, and counsel made no attempt to obtain an extension after his secretary's inquiry determined that the transcript was not fully transcribed because of illness in the court reporter's family.
Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal because several telephone calls were made to the court reporter and counsel received assurances that a transcript was being prepared, and that at no time did counsel intentionally delay the proceedings. Counsel for appellant also maintains that the clerk of court was contacted in writing to assure that the appeal record was complete, and that she relied upon a lack of response as an indication that it was complete.
In reviewing a finding of unreasonable and inexcusable delay in filing a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RR v. DEC ASSOC.
...of the hearing for summary judgment, (2) such delay was inexcusable, and (3) caused by the appellant. Dept. of Human Resources v. Patillo, 196 Ga.App. 778, 397 S.E.2d 47 (1990). This case does not satisfy all of such elements necessary for the exercise of the discretion of the trial The que......
-
In the Interest of T.H., a Child.
...the appellant's counsel had the transcript in his possession at the time he filed the notice of appeal); Dept. of Human Resources v. Patillo, 196 Ga.App. 778, 779, 397 S.E.2d 47 (1990) (affirming dismissal of the appeal when the “appellant made no effort to discover when the transcript woul......
-
Cook v. McNamee
... ... Department of Human Resources v. Pattilo, 196 Ga.App ... 778, 779, ... ...
-
Jackson v. Beech Aircraft Corp., s. A95A0343
...for appeal, would not serve as justification for the filing in this court of an untimely appeal (compare Dept. of Human Resources v. Patillo, 196 Ga.App. 778, 397 S.E.2d 47 and In re G.W.H., 168 Ga.App. 845, 310 S.E.2d 573). Further, although the Jacksons' lead counsel testified that follow......