O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
The duties heretofore performed by a master in the superior court shall be performed by an auditor.
History
Ga. L. 1894, p. 123, § 3; Ga. L. 1895, p. 47, § 1; Civil Code 1895, § 4581; Civil Code 1910, § 5127; Code 1933, § 10-101.
Annotations
Cross references. Appointment and powers of special master in superior court for determina-
tion 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 Ga. LEXIS 376 (1943). Appointment improper. - In an action for judicial dissolution of an LLC, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, the trial court abused the court’s discretion in appointing the special master/auditor under Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 46 and O.C.G.A. § 9-7-1 et seq., since the appointed person was performing an impermissible combination of roles by acting as an investigator, witness, and judge of fact and law, which were at odds with the role of special master. A&M Hospitalities, LLC v. Alimchandani, 359 Ga. App. 271, 856 S.E.2d 704, 2021 Ga. App. LEXIS 180 (2021). 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 Ga. App. LEXIS 120 (2018), cert. denied, No. S18C1081, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 721 (Ga. Oct. 22, 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.
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 27A Am. Jur. 2d, Equity, §§ 194 et seq., 207 et seq. ALR. Conclusiveness of or weight attached to
findings of fact of master in chancery, 33 A.L.R. 745.
Notes of Decisions
A&m Hospitalities, LLC v. Prenita Alimchandani (Ga. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 4× “On October 7, 2019, the trial court issued an order (“the special master/auditor order”) clarifying Cohilas’s appointment, explaining that Cohilas was appointed as an auditor and special master as those terms are contemplated and authorized by OCGA §§ 9-7-1, 9-7-2, 9-7-3, and…”
A & M Hospitalities, LLC v. Prenita Alimchandani (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “On October 7, 2019, the trial court issued an order (“the special master/auditor order”) clarifying Cohilas’s appointment, explaining that Cohilas was appointed as an auditor and special master as those terms are contemplated and authorized by OCGA §§ 9-7-1, 9-7-2, 9-7-3, and…”
Prenita Alimchandani v. a & M Hospitalities, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 5× “In the order, which was written by Cohilas, the trial court explained that Cohilas was appointed as an auditor and special master “as those terms are contemplated and authorized by OCGA §§ 9-7-1, 9-7-2, 9-7-3, and Uniform Superior Court Rule [(“USCR”)] 46.”
A&M Hospitalities, LLC v. Alimchandani, 828 S.E.2d 615 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “And under OCGA § 9-7-1, the duties previously performed by a "master" in the superior court are now performed by an "auditor," although Uniform Superior Court Rule ("USCR") 46, which was adopted effective June 4, 2009, permits the trial court to appoint a special master to…”
A & M Hospitalities, LLC v. Prenita Alimchandani (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “And under OCGA § 9-7-1, the duties previously performed by a “master” in the superior court are now performed by an “auditor,” although Uniform Superior Court Rule (“USCR”) 46, which was adopted effective June 4, 2009, permits the trial court to appoint a special master to…”
Potts Et Al. v. Rueda Et Al., 813 S.E.2d 412 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “This court noted that "under OCGA § 9-7-1, the duties previously performed by a 'master' in the superior court are now performed by an 'auditor,' although [USCR] 46, which was adopted effective June 4, 2009, permits the trial court to appoint a special master to perform certain…”
Interfinancial Midtown, Inc. v. Choate Constr. Co., 806 S.E.2d 255 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “While the court's order, prepared by Choate, referred to the appointment of a special master, the substance of the court's order shows that it should be considered as the appointment of an auditor under OCGA §§ 9-7-1 and 9-7-2. See In the Interest of B.”
Interfinancial Midtown, Inc. v. Choate Constr. Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “without segregating out any of the work done per claims against the 15 While the court’s order, prepared by Choate, referred to the appointment of a special master, the substance of the court’s order shows that it should be considered as the appointment of an auditor under OCGA…”
Nix v. 230 Kirkwood Homes, LLC, 793 S.E.2d 402 (Ga. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 9-7-1 (“[t]he duties heretofore performed by a master in the superior court shall be performed by an auditor”).”
Petrakopoulos v. Vranas, 750 S.E.2d 779 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “And [u]nder OCGA § 9-7-1, the duties previously performed by a “master” in the superior court are now performed by an “auditor,” although Uniform Superior Court Rule (“USCR”) 46, which was adopted effective June 4, 2009, permits the trial court to appoint a special master to…”
Elizabeth Mauldin v. Russell Edward Mauldin (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “] OCGA § 9-7-1 (b.1). Id. at 182 (2). A finding of parental fitness is restricted to a consideration of “the parent’s present fitness,” and a court may not rely “on evidence of the parent’s past unfitness or compare the parent’s ability to raise the child with the superior…”
George A. Petrakopoulos v. Gus Vranas (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “And “[u]nder OCGA § 9-7-1, the duties previously performed by a ‘master’ in the superior court are now performed by an ‘auditor,’ although Uniform Superior Court Rule (“USCR”) 46, which was adopted effective June 4, 2009, permits the trial court to appoint a special master to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.