Coptic Construction Co. v. Rolle (2006)

Co. v. Rolle, 279 Ga. App. 454, 456 ( 631 SE2d 475 ) (2006) we concluded that, even though the appealing party had ordered the hearing transcript at issue from the court reporter (and had timely filed a trial transcript and timely paid the costs for preparing the record), the unreasonable delay in filing the hearing transcript was inexcusable where the appellant never communicated with the court reporter during a nine-month period of time after ordering the transcript.

Co. v. Rolle, 279 Ga. App. 454, 454-455 ( 631 SE2d 475 ) (2006).

Co., Inc. v. Rolle, 279 Ga. App. 454, 454-455 ( 631 SE2d 475 ) (2006). 5 Morrell v. Western Svcs., LLC, 291 Ga. App. 369, 370 ( 662 SE2d 215 ) (2008). 3 In this case, the trial court entered the order granting summary judgment to Mercer on April 11, 2011.

As to a trial court’s dismissal of an appeal, our Supreme Court has held that “[a] delay in excess of 30 days in filing a transcript after a notice of appeal is filed is prima facie unreasonable and inexcusable, but this presumption is subject to rebuttal if the party comes forward with evidence to show that the delay was neither unreasonable nor inexcusable.”7 And in evaluating the threshold question of whether the delay was 6 Newton v. Freeman, 353 Ga. App. 704 , 707 (1) (…

Co., Inc. v. Rolle, 279 Ga. App. 454, 456 ( 631 SE2d 475 ) (2006); see Propst, 288 Ga. at 863 (“The trial court’s ruling [on a motion to dismiss an appeal] will be reversed on appeal only for abuse of discretion.”); Brienza, 350 Ga. App. at 675 (noting that this Court “will only reverse a trial court’s ruling on such a motion if the court abused its discretion.”) 7 Newton requested no additional extensions of time.

Indeed, the court’s heavy caseload bears no relation to the State’s ability—and its duty—to request the appropriate transcript for its appeal and then monitor the progress of that transcript’s preparation.18 17 See supra note 12 (explaining the distinction between “unreasonable” and “inexcusable”). 18 See Mercer v. Munn, 321 Ga. App. 723, 726 (1) ( 742 SE2d 747 ) (2013) (“[T]he duty to order the transcript and to monitor timely the progress of the reporter’s office in transc…

Co. v. Rolle, 279 Ga. App. 454, 456 ( 631 SE2d 475 ) (2006) we concluded that, even though the appealing party had ordered the hearing transcript at issue from the court reporter (and had timely filed a trial transcript and timely paid the costs for preparing the record), the unreasonable delay in filing the hearing transcript was inexcusable where the appellant never communicated with the court reporter during a nine-month period of time after ordering the transcript.

Co. v. Rolle, 279 Ga. App. 454, 456 ( 631 SE2d 475 ) (2006).

Co. v. Rolle, 279 Ga. App. 454, 456 ( 631 SE2d 475 ) (2006) (delay in filing of trial transcript was inexcusable and caused by appellant, where appellant failed to communicate with the court reporter for nine months); Crocker v. Stevens, 210 Ga. App. 231, 240-241 (10) ( 435 SE2d 690 ) (1993), disapproved in part on other grounds by Kim v. Lim, 254 Ga. App. 627, 630 (1) ( 563 SE2d 485 ) (2002) (three-month delay in filing of trial transcript was inexcusable and caused by appe…

Co. v. Rolle, 279 Ga. App. 454, 456 ( 631 SE2d 475 ) (2006).

See Court of Appeals Rule 12. 7 an extension of time to do so.5 During that time, they wholly shirked their responsibility to obtain the transcript as required by law and to remain in contact with the court reporter about progress.6 See Coptic Const. Co. v. Rolle, 279 Ga. App. 454, 456 ( 631 SE2d 475 ) (2006) (delay inexcusable where appellant never sought extension of time to file transcript and never communicated with the court reporter during the nine-month period about t…