Dunwoody-Woodlands Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Hedquist

Decision Date14 March 1991
Docket NumberDUNWOODY-WOODLANDS,No. A91A0010,A91A0010
Citation403 S.E.2d 893,199 Ga.App. 91
PartiesCONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. HEDQUIST.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Hyatt & Rhoads, Kathy K. Dorough, Atlanta, Anthony W. Oxley III, Decatur, for appellant.

John H. Hedquist III, pro se.

ANDREWS, Judge.

Dunwoody sued Hedquist to collect past due condominium association assessments. The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of Hedquist. Dunwoody claims the court erred by excluding evidence of the debt.

1. In its first two enumerations of error Dunwoody argues the trial court improperly refused to admit certain documentary evidence of the debt. Since the excluded documents have not been made a part of the record on appeal for our review, we cannot consider these enumerations. Hunnicutt v. Ga. Power Co., 168 Ga.App. 525, 527-528, 309 S.E.2d 862 (1983); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 118 Ga.App. 616, 617, 164 S.E.2d 926 (1968).

2. In its third enumeration of error Dunwoody claims the trial court erroneously prevented its property manager from testifying from her own personal knowledge to prove the debt. The trial court refused to allow this testimony apparently on the basis that the documents reflecting the debt were the best evidence. Where oral testimony is offered regarding a debt of which a documentary record is kept, " ' "the testimony of a person who has knowledge of the facts from which [the documents] are made up is as to those facts primary evidence, and is admissible, whether or not the [documents] themselves are put in evidence." ' " WGNX v. Gorham, 185 Ga.App. 489, 490, 364 S.E.2d 621 (1988). Accordingly, the best evidence rule provided no basis for the court's ruling.

However, this testimony was properly excluded as hearsay because the property manager did not have personal knowledge of the facts from which the documents were compiled. OCGA § 24-3-1. In WGNX, supra at 490, 364 S.E.2d 621, the trial court erroneously excluded testimony about a past due debt from the collections manager, who was "in charge of collecting all monies owed to the station and thus would have been testifying from her own knowledge had she been allowed to answer the question." Dunwoody's property manager lacked any immediate and independent personal knowledge of the debt. Although she was familiar with the excluded documents reflecting the debt, she did not prepare the documents, or personally supervise preparation of the documents, or make any entries of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Poss v. Department of Human Resources, s. A92A0793
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 1992
    ...to apply a "wrong for any reason" rule, in contravention of the right for any reason rule. See, e.g., Dunwoody-Woodlands Condo. Assn. v. Hedquist, 199 Ga.App. 91(2), 403 S.E.2d 893 (1991). "It is not the function of an appellate court to cull the record on behalf of a party in search of ins......
  • Shaw v. Ruiz, A92A1871
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 9, 1993
    ...solely through books and records kept by a third person is inadmissible as hearsay.' [Cits.]" Dunwoody-Woodlands Cond. Assn. v. Hedquist, 199 Ga.App. 91, 92(2), 403 S.E.2d 893 (1991). Again, no reversible error has been 7. In Enumerations 7 and 8, Shaw complains about the trial court's sust......
  • Howard v. Gmac Mortg., LLC.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • April 10, 2013
    ...wrongful foreclosure, but which were not made a part of the record below, is hereby denied. See Dunwoody–Woodlands Condominium Assoc. v. Hedquist, 199 Ga.App. 91, (1), 403 S.E.2d 893 (1991). ...
  • Clark v. Byrd, No. A01A2422
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 28, 2002
    ...applying a "wrong for any reason" rule, in contravention of the right for any reason rule. See, e.g., Dunwoody-Woodlands Condo. Assn. v. Hedquist, 199 Ga.App. 91(2), 403 S.E.2d 893 (1991). "It is not the function of an appellate court to cull the record on behalf of a party in search of ins......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT