Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 9-7-1 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 9-7-1 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 9-7-1

TITLE 9 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 7. Auditors, 9-7-1 through 9-7-23.

ARTICLE 4 QUO WARRANTO

9-7-1. Duties of auditor.

The duties heretofore performed by a master in the superior court shall be performed by an auditor.

(Ga. L. 1894, p. 123, § 3; Ga. L. 1895, p. 47, § 1; Civil Code 1895, § 4581; Civil Code 1910, § 5127; Code 1933, § 10-101.)

Cross references.

- Appointment and powers of special master in superior court for determination of just and adequate compensation in eminent domain proceeding, § 22-2-100 et seq.

Law reviews.

- For annual survey of law on trial practice and procedure, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 339 (2010).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Masters in equity cases, both special and standing, have been abolished since the approval of Ga. L. 1894, p. 123. Sengstacke v. American Missionary Ass'n, 196 Ga. 539, 26 S.E.2d 891 (1943).

Notice of consideration of appointment of special master required.

- Although the parties were on notice that the trial court was considering the appointment of an auditor, the trial court's failure to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before appointing a special master violated Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 46(B)(1); the trial court otherwise failed to make findings required by Rule 46. Petrakopoulos v. Vranas, 325 Ga. App. 332, 750 S.E.2d 779 (2013).

Form of order.

- Trial court did not err by issuing an order because the court did not actually name and appoint an auditor and/or special master but, rather, the order simply granted the request for an auditor and directed the parties to submit the names of three possible auditors from whom the trial court could eventually make an appointment; thus, the matters mandated under Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 46 did not have to be followed. Potts v. Rueda, 345 Ga. App. 389, 813 S.E.2d 412 (2018).

Appeal from review of auditor's report.

- Where the auditor did not submit a final report containing separate findings of fact and conclusions of law for the superior court's review, the judgment of the court was directly appealable. McCaughey v. Murphy, 267 Ga. 64, 473 S.E.2d 762 (1996).

Cited in King v. Bank of Weston, 166 Ga. 463, 143 S.E. 423 (1928); Henderson v. Lott, 170 Ga. 261, 152 S.E. 98 (1930); Hicks v. Atlanta Trust Co., 187 Ga. 314, 200 S.E. 301 (1938); AAA Pest Control, Inc. v. Murray, 207 Ga. App. 631, 428 S.E.2d 657 (1993); Alston & Bird LLP v. Mellon Ventures II, L.P., 307 Ga. App. 640, 706 S.E.2d 652 (2010).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 27A Am. Jur. 2d, Equity, § 226 et seq.

ALR.

- Conclusiveness of or weight attached to findings of fact of master in chancery, 33 A.L.R. 745.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 9-7-1

Total Results: 6  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. Waters, 695 S.E.2d 265 (Ga. 2010).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 1, 2010 | 287 Ga. 235, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 1753

...843, 844, 681 S.E.2d 651 (2009), the Court of Appeals determined that, because the complaint filed in this products liability class action prays for equitable relief, the trial court had the authority to appoint a special master to rule on issues of fact and law in pretrial discovery under OCGA § 9-7-1 et seq....
...at 845-846(1), 681 S.E.2d 651. The parties apparently agree that, if the Court of Appeals correctly found that the trial court had authority to appoint an auditor *267 in this case, the trial court's order did not comply with the prerequisites of OCGA § 9-7-1 et seq....
...pointment of a special master in a case such as this one. In conclusion, we agree with the Court of Appeals that this case must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, although we base our opinion on the precepts of Rule 46, not OCGA § 9-7-1 et seq....
Copy

Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Wilson, 256 Ga. 849 (Ga. 1987).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 3, 1987 | 353 S.E.2d 466

...When Wilson notified Gilliland of his intent to exercise his right to sell in June 1980, the parties disagreed as to the proper value of the stock, and the disagreement grew into a lawsuit. The trial court ultimately appointed Haynes Clement, a partner in Arthur Andersen, to be a special auditor, pursuant to OCGA § 9-7-1 et seq., for the purpose of determining the proper value of the stock. Following a two and a half year audit, Clement returned his report on the value of the stock in June 1980....
...performed by that party, but to the functions that the law entitles the party to perform. South View Cemetery Assn. v. Hailey, 199 Ga. 478 (4) (a) (34 SE2d 863) (1945). Here, Clement has clearly been named auditor by the trial court pursuant to OCGA § 9-7-1 et seq., and the parties agree that he is accordingly cloaked in judicial immunity. Since Andersen claims immunity under the order that gave *850Clement immunity, we must determine whether the court’s order sufficiently endows Andersen with judicial powers under OCGA § 9-7-6 to cloak Andersen in immunity....
Copy

McCaughey v. Murphy, 473 S.E.2d 762 (Ga. 1996).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 15, 1996 | 267 Ga. 64, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 2690

...application procedures of OCGA § 5-6-35 or is directly appealable. 1. OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(1) requires an application for a discretionary appeal "from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of ... auditors...." The Auditors Statute, OCGA § 9-7-1 et seq., contemplates that an auditor's report shall be a complete disposition of all legal and factual issues and that, as such, it will be a final report subject to specified judicial review. Carmichael v. Carmichael, 248 Ga. 216, 218(1), 221(7), 282 S.E.2d 71 (1981). See also OCGA §§ 9-7-8, 9-7-13; Pickens v....
Copy

Franklin v. Franklin, 475 S.E.2d 890 (Ga. 1996).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 9, 1996 | 267 Ga. 82, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 3215

...Before trial, appellee filed a motion in limine for the trial court to designate certain real and personal property as appellee's separate, non-marital property. The trial court granted the motion. On the eve of trial, the trial court referred the case to an auditor, OCGA § 9-7-1 et seq., noting that appellant was not represented by counsel....
...216, 282 S.E.2d 71 (1981), supports a different conclusion. A review of the opinion in Carmichael reveals that the issues of alimony, child support and property division were referred to an auditor with the consent of both parties. This Court then analyzed the case under the predecessor to OCGA § 9-7-1 et seq....
Copy

San Miguel Produce, Inc. v. L.G. Herndon Jr. Farms, Inc, 843 S.E.2d 403 (Ga. 2020).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 18, 2020 | 308 Ga. 812

Copy

Nix v. 230 Kirkwood Homes, LLC, 300 Ga. 91 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 7, 2016 | 793 S.E.2d 402

...rom the judgment of the court. . . “The term ‘auditor,’ for purposes of the statute, is broad enough to include ‘special master.’ ” E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Waters[, 298 Ga. App. 843, 845 (1), n. 2 (681 SE2d 651) (2009)]. See OCGA § 9-7-1 (“[t]he duties heretofore performed by a master in the superior court shall be performed by an auditor”)....