Van Diviere v. Delta Airlines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | A92A0146,Nos. A92A0145,s. A92A0145 |
| Parties | VAN DIVIERE et al. v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC. (Two Cases). |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Bedford, Kirschner & Venker, Andrew R. Kirschner and T. Jackson Bedford, Jr., Atlanta, for appellants.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Jerry B. Blackstock and stephen L. Cummings, Atlanta, for appellee.
Cheryl Van Diviere and her husband brought an action against Delta Airlines, Inc. seeking damages for injuries alleged to have resulted from the actions of Delta employees while boarding and seating Van Diviere on a Delta flight from Hartford, Connecticut to Atlanta. The original action, filed in superior court, resulted in a mistrial after a jury deadlocked. The Van Divieres then voluntarily dismissed the action and refiled this action in state court, where a jury trial ended in a defense verdict. Following the trial court's denial of their motion for judgment n.o.v. and for a new trial, the Van Divieres filed a notice of appeal. They subsequently amended the notice of appeal and sought and obtained an extension of the time within which to file the transcript. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Delta's motion to dismiss the appeal made on the ground that the transcript filing deadline had passed without the transcript having been filed. In case no. A92A0146, the Van Divieres appeal from the trial court's order dismissing the appeal. Case no. A92A0145 is the Van Divieres' original appeal from the trial court's order denying their motion for j.n.o.v. and for a new trial.
A trial court has authority to dismiss an appeal if, "after notice and opportunity for hearing, [it finds that] there has been an unreasonable delay in the filing of the transcript and it is shown that the delay was inexcusable and was caused by [the appealing] party." OCGA § 5-6-48(c). In passing upon these issues the trial court must exercise its discretion, Strother v. C & S Nat. Bank, 147 Ga.App. 140, 141, 248 S.E.2d 204 (1978), but only if the movant has shown: (1) that the delay in filing was unreasonable; (2) that it was inexcusable; and (3) that it was caused by the appealing party. Department of Human Resources v. Pattilo, 196 Ga.App. 778, 779, 397 S.E.2d 47 (1990). This court must decide, based on the evidence presented, whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the appeal. Gilman Paper Co. v. James, 235 Ga. 348, 349, 219 S.E.2d 447 (1975).
The evidence at the hearing on the motion showed that following the jury's verdict and the judgment entered thereon in the spring of 1990, appellants' attorneys ordered transcripts prepared of several portions of the trial testimony, presumably for the pending motion for j.n.o.v. and new trial. Those portions of the trial testimony were transcribed, paid for, and timely filed with the trial court. After the trial court denied appellants' post-trial motion, appellants timely filed a notice of appeal on November 2, 1990. Shortly thereafter, the trial court granted their motion to extend the deadline for filing the transcript until February 1, 1991. See OCGA § 5-6-39(a)(3). No further extensions were sought.
Those portions of the transcript which had already been transcribed for the motion for new trial were timely filed for appeal by the extended deadline. The court reporter testified, however, that appellants did not order additional portions of the trial transcript which they had designated in their notice of appeal until March 13, 1991, 40 days after the extended deadline for filing the transcript had passed. Although the evidence adduced at the hearing was in direct conflict on this point, with appellants' attorneys stating in their place that they had timely ordered the additional transcript portions pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-42, the trial court was authorized by the evidence to conclude that appellants failed to timely order the additional portions of the transcript from the court reporter. See OCGA § 5-6-48(c). At the hearing on the motion to dismiss the appeal (held 119 days after the transcript filing deadline had expired), those portions of the transcript still had not been filed. We note that the evidence showed that on November 16, 1990, appellee designated two additional portions of the trial testimony to be included in the record on appeal and those portions of the transcript were timely filed.
The trial court granted appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal, finding that "[t]he failure to timely file a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. McNamee
...its discretion in dismissing the appeal. Gilman Paper Co. v. James, 235 Ga. 348, 349, 219 S.E.2d 447 (1975)." Van Diviere v. Delta Airlines, 204 Ga.App. 573, 574(1), 420 S.E.2d 27. In the case sub judice, the trial court concluded that plaintiff's delay in attempting to resolve his dispute ......
-
McClure v. State, A92A0214
...was also inexcusable and was caused by the appellant. Sellers v. Nodvin, 262 Ga. 205, 415 S.E.2d 908 (1992); Van Diviere v. Delta Airlines, 204 Ga.App. 573, 420 S.E.2d 27 (1992); OCGA § 5-6-48(c), (f). The trial court's finding that the failure to timely file the transcript was caused by th......
-
Accc Ins. Co. v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc.
...185 Ga.App. at 22, 363 S.E.2d 265 (11–day delay in filing transcript was not an unreasonable delay) with Van Diviere v. Delta Airlines, 204 Ga.App. 573, 420 S.E.2d 27 (1992) (“the record shows ... that the transcript had not yet been filed 119 days after the expiration of the deadline, whic......
-
IN INTEREST OF DMC
...in inequity; or (b) causing the appeal to be stale." Inexcusableness is determined in each case. In Van Diviere v. Delta Airlines, 204 Ga.App. 573, 574, 420 S.E.2d 27 (1992), the appellant's failure to order additional portions of the transcript constituted inexcusable (c) Findings of Fact ......