O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-7-3 (2019)

Appointment of auditor in matters of account; on application and notice; on court’s own motion

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

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.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In all cases in the superior, state, or city courts involving matters of account, if the case shall require it, the judge may appoint an auditor to investigate the matters of account and report the result to the court upon the application of either party and after notice to the opposite party, or upon his own motion when in his judgment the facts and circumstances of any such case require it.

History

Ga. L. 1895, p. 47, § 1; Civil Code 1895, § 4582; Civil Code 1910, § 5128; Code 1933, § 10-102; Ga. L. 2007, p. 47, § 9/SB 103.

Annotations

Law reviews. For article, “The Civil Jurisdiction of

State and Magistrate Courts,” see 24 Ga. St. B. J. 29 (1987). For article, “2019 Georgia Corporation and Business Organization Case Law Developments,” see 25 Ga. St. B.J. 30 (June 2020).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Causes properly referable to auditors are those involving long and complicated commercial transactions supposed to require too much time for careful investigation and accurate computations to be properly referred to a jury. Barber v. Southern Serv. Corp., 182 Ga. 124, 185 S.E. 93, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 296 (1936). All or any part of the facts may be referred to auditor, but such a reference is a matter resting largely in the discretion of the court, and the exercise of such discretion will not be interfered with unless abused. Mobley v. Faulk, 42 Ga. App. 314, 156 S.E. 40, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 381 (1930). Discretion of court. - The reference

of a case to an auditor under this section rests largely in the discretion of the court; and unless this discretion is abused, it will not be interfered with. Teasley v. Bradley, 120 Ga. 373, 47 S.E. 925, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 558 (1904); Mayor of Gainesville v. Jaudon, 145 Ga. 299, 89 S.E. 210, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 286 (1916); Spencer v. Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co., 27 Ga. App. 710, 109 S.E. 510, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 376 (1921) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-7-3). Power of court to appoint auditor extends to both law and equity cases. Hicks v. Atlanta Trust Co., 187 Ga. 623, 1 S.E.2d 669, 1939 Ga. LEXIS 441 (1939). An accounting may be had at law. Gifford v. Jackson, 223 Ga. 155, 154 S.E.2d 224, 1967 Ga. LEXIS 454, trans-

ferred, 115 Ga. App. 773, 156 S.E.2d 105, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1249 (1967). Since accounting may be had at law, mere prayer for accounting does not invoke equity powers of a court. Peeples v. Peeples, 193 Ga. 358, 18 S.E.2d 629, 1942 Ga. LEXIS 397 (1942). Appointment of auditor. - In an action to judicially dissolve a limited liability company, the defendant’s claim that the trial court erred by appointing the receiver without making a finding that there was a clear and urgent need for such extraordinary relief as placing the company in a receivership failed because the trial court appointed an auditor to investigate matters of account, not a receiver. A&M Hospitalities, LLC v. Alimchandani, 351 Ga. App. 310, 828 S.E.2d 615, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 263 (2019), cert. denied, No. S19C1563, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 111 (Ga. Feb. 10, 2020). Accounting available in county court proceeding. - Since the Civil Court of Fulton County has concurrent jurisdiction with the superior court, except in cases involving injuries to the person or the reputation and in those

cases where jurisdiction is vested in the superior court by the Constitution, if required, an auditor can be appointed under this section and an accounting had at law. McDonough Constr. Co. v. Ormewood Apts., Inc., 212 Ga. 620, 94 S.E.2d 733, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 468 (1956) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-7-3). In a declaratory judgment action for dissolution of a partnership, an accounting, and damages, direct appeal of a sua sponte order for the appointment of an auditor was appropriate. Parmar v. Khera, 215 Ga. App. 71, 449 S.E.2d 894, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 1115 (1994). Suit for accounting case, on appeal, must be transferred to Court of Appeals from Supreme Court, where the alleged facts show no unusual complication in the transactions or other ground for equitable relief additional to the relief which might be afforded by an accounting and judgment at law. Universal Garage Co. v. Fowler, 184 Ga. 604, 192 S.E. 299, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 596 (1937), transferred, 57 Ga. App. 668, 196 S.E. 198, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 363 (1938).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 27A Am. Jur. 2d, Equity, §§ 194 et seq., 207 et seq.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2021 · leading case: A&M Hospitalities, LLC v. Alimchandani, 828 S.E.2d 615 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

A&M Hospitalities, LLC v. Alimchandani, 828 S.E.2d 615 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 12× “" OCGA § 9-7-6. 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…”

Petrakopoulos v. Vranas, 750 S.E.2d 779 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “But the trial court denied those motions, and on September 6, 2012, scheduled a status hearing for September 24, 2012, “for the parties to show cause why an auditor should or should not be appointed pursuant to OCGA § 9-7-3. See also OCGA § 9-7-17. Williams v.”

Parmar v. Khera, 449 S.E.2d 894 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “Jalli, appeal the trial court’s sua sponte order which referred this case to an auditor pursuant to OCGA § 9-7-3. 1 Appellee, Manjit Khera, brought the underlying action for declaratory judgment, dissolution of a partnership, an accounting, and damages.”

Henderson v. KMSystems, Inc., 374 S.E.2d 550 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “, OCGA § 9-7-3. Cross-appellants have failed to carry their burden of establishing that the trial judge breached her discretion in ordering an accounting.”

Sorrentino v. Boston Mut. Life Ins., 426 S.E.2d 594 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “On motion by appellee, an aüditor was appointed under OCGA § 9-7-3 to investigate the account and report its findings to the trial court.”

Perrin v. Stansell, 533 S.E.2d 458 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “The trial court’s finding that the appellee had a “superior legal right to the child under OCGA § 9-7-3 [sic]” was error as a matter of law, because both grandparents are third parties of equal status to the grandchild.”

A & M Hospitalities, LLC v. Prenita Alimchandani (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 12× “Thus, “unless modified by the order of appointment,” an auditor generally is granted the authority “to hear motions, allow amendments, and pass upon all questions of law and fact,” including the “power to subpoena and swear witnesses and compel the production of papers.” OCGA §…”

George A. Petrakopoulos v. Gus Vranas (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “6 an auditor should or should not be appointed pursuant to OCGA § 9-7-3. See also OCGA § 9-7-17. Williams v.”

Wayne Hannah v. Sara Paige Hatcher (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “In Reeves, we held that although the child’s father had not legitimated the child, and there was no possibility he could do so because he was deceased, “no authority limit[s] a grandparent’s standing to challenge custody to circumstances [in which] the father has legitimated the…”

Stanley Njoku v. Hilda Adeyemi (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to OCGA § 9-7-3, for example, [i]n all cases in the superior, state, or city courts involving matters of account, if the case shall require it, the judge may appoint an auditor to investigate the matters of account and report the result to the court upon the application…”

Prenita Alimchandani v. a & M Hospitalities, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “13 OCGA § 9-7-3. 7 witnesses and compel the production of papers.”

In Re Est. of Willis, 713 S.E.2d 464 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “7 See OCGA §§ 9-11-26 to -37 (general discovery procedures); see also OCGA § 9-7-3 (“In all cases in the superior, state, or city courts involving matters of account, if the case shall require it, the judge may appoint an auditor to investigate the matters of account and report…”

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.