Green v. McCart
| Decision Date | 04 June 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. S01A0449.,S01A0449. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | GREEN v. McCART. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Christopher J. McFadden, Decatur, for appellant.
Brock, Clay, Wilson & Rogers, Stephen A. Yaklin, Marietta, for appellee.
Thomas Green and Miriam McCart entered into a meretricious relationship in the 1980's and, in 1997, they participated in a ceremonial marriage. In 1999, Ms. McCart filed for divorce. After entry of the final divorce decree, Mr. Green moved for a new trial, indicating that he was "making preparation to obtain all or a portion of the transcript." A hearing on the motion was continued several times, based upon the lack of a transcript. Eventually, the trial court instructed Mr. Green to meet immediately with the court reporter and to arrange for the preparation of the transcript. Subsequently, Ms. McCart, alleging that no transcript had yet been ordered, sought attorney's fees and the denial of the motion for new trial. At the instruction of a member of the trial court's staff, Ms. McCart's lawyer submitted proposed orders awarding attorney's fees and denying the motion for new trial, along with an affidavit documenting the amount of attorney's fees. Without conducting a hearing, the trial court entered both orders on the same day that they were submitted to it. As authority for the award of attorney's fees, the order cited OCGA § 9-15-14(b) and Uniform Superior Court (USC) Rule 41.3. This Court granted Mr. Green's application for discretionary appeal, to determine whether the trial court erred in ruling on the two motions without conducting a hearing. Because the failure to hold a hearing was erroneous, we reverse and remand.
1. USC Rule 6.3 provides that, "[u]nless otherwise ordered by the court," a motion for new trial "shall be decided" after an "oral hearing." Here, the trial court did not issue an order excepting the motion filed by Mr. Green from this procedural requirement. Instead, it summarily denied the motion without holding the mandatory hearing. The appellate courts of Georgia have Heston v. Lilly, 242 Ga.App. 902(1), 531 S.E.2d 784 (2000).
USC Rule 41.3 provides that, in the absence of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the filing by counsel of a motion for new trial specifying inclusion of the transcript in the record Assuming without deciding that Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Partners v. Mehrlander.
...the court to specify the conduct upon which the award is made.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). FN12. See Green v. McCart, 273 Ga. 862, 863(1), 548 S.E.2d 303 (2001); Sawyer, 253 Ga.App. at 620(4), 560 S.E.2d 86. FN13. See DeRossett Enters., 275 Ga.App. at 732(4), 621 S.E.2d 755; Meach......
-
Slone v. Myers
...motion is sufficient to preclude a waiver." MacDonald v. Harris, 266 Ga.App. 287, 288, 597 S.E.2d 125 (2004). 15. Green v. McCart, 273 Ga. 862, 863(1), 548 S.E.2d 303 (2001). 16. See id.; Smith v. Hardeman, 281 Ga.App. 402, 406(2), 636 S.E.2d 106 17. See Byers v. Caldwell, 273 Ga. 228, 229,......
-
Jones v. Spruill, A16A0330
...We agree. Under Georgia law, a trial court is required to hold a hearing before deciding a motion for a new trial. See Green v. McCart , 273 Ga. 862–863, 548 S.E.2d 303 (2001) ; Garner Plumbing v. Slate Const. , 300 Ga.App. 656, 686 S.E.2d 301 (2009) ; Uniform Sup. Ct. R. 6.3. Thus, because......
-
KURIATNYK v. KURIATNYK
...not encourage adherence to the Uniform Rules and would render the mandated hearing a hollow right.' (Cits.)" Cit. Green v. McCart, 273 Ga. 862, 863(1), 548 S.E.2d 303 (2001). See also Garner Plumbing v. Slate Constr., 300 Ga.App. 656(1), 686 S.E.2d 301 (2009); Barker v. Elrod, 291 Ga.App. 8......