O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-7-8 (2019)

Contents of report - Rulings, findings, and conclusions

✓ 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

After hearing the evidence and argument, the auditor shall file the evidence and a report in which he shall clearly and separately state all rulings made by him, classify and state his findings, and report his conclusions upon the law and facts.

History

Ga. L. 1894, p. 123, § 7; Civil Code

1895, § 4587; Civil Code 1910, § 5133; Code 1933, § 10-203.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Auditor’s report akin to jury verdict. - In most instances, an auditor’s

report is viewed in the same respect and effect as the verdict of a jury. Norair Eng’r

Corp. v. Saint Joseph’s Hosp., 147 Ga. App. 595, 249 S.E.2d 642, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2864 (1978). Rulings on evidence are rulings of law and should be stated as such. Southern Pine Co. v. Dickey, 136 Ga. 662, 71 S.E. 1110, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 170 (1911). Auditor’s brief of the evidence may be concise and clear. Fowler v. Davis, 120 Ga. 442, 47 S.E. 951, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 581 (1904). Alternative report may be filed. Hudson v. Hudson, 98 Ga. 147, 26 S.E. 482, 1895 Ga. LEXIS 620 (1895); Borders v. Vance, 134 Ga. 85, 67 S.E. 543, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 123 (1910). Form of report. - The auditor’s findings of fact and of law should be separately classified: (1) to avoid undue influence on the jury; and (2) to aid the parties in formulating their exceptions to the auditor’s report. Norair Eng’g Corp. v. Saint Joseph’s Hosp., 163 Ga. App. 167, 290 S.E.2d 145, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2435 (1982). Form of auditor’s report can be dispensed with by agreement of the parties. King v. Steel Bldrs., Inc., 91 Ga. App. 203, 85 S.E.2d 466, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 896 (1954). There is nothing in this section or chapter to provide that the form of an auditor’s report which stated only factual conclusions, and contained no brief of evidence, agreed to by all parties and under the stipulations, is void and illegal. King v. Steel Bldrs., Inc., 91 Ga. App. 203, 85 S.E.2d 466, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 896 (1954) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-7-8). It is not good objection to the approval of auditor’s report that counsel was served with incorrect copy. Buttrill v. Buttrill, 179 Ga. 759, 177 S.E. 576, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 397 (1934). Judge retains control of trial despite auditor’s report. - Although O.C.G.A. § 9-7-8 contemplates that the auditor’s report shall be a complete disposition of all legal and factual issues which

is final (subject to specified review), the superior court judge has inherent power to control the course of the trial, especially in equity cases. Carmichael v. Carmichael, 248 Ga. 216, 282 S.E.2d 71, 1981 Ga. LEXIS 937 (1981). Rulings of neither auditor nor special master are immediately final. Sweat v. Georgia Power Co., 235 Ga. 281, 219 S.E.2d 384, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 855 (1975). Rule of special master. - Although the relationship and accountability of a special master to the court is that of an auditor, a special master is not obligated to render a report in the manner prescribed in this section containing the special master’s findings and conclusions upon the law and the facts. Sweat v. Georgia Power Co., 235 Ga. 281, 219 S.E.2d 384, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 855 (1975) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-7-8). Jury instructions. - In the trial of a case which was submitted to an auditor, who made the auditor’s findings of law and fact, to which exceptions were filed, it was not ground for new trial for the court to charge the jury the law as contained in this section which relate to the duties of an auditor; such charge was not confusing or misleading to the jury, nor erroneous for any reason assigned. Harrison v. Mayo, 169 Ga. 799, 151 S.E. 484, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 35 (1930) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-7-8). Presenting auditor’s report to the jury. - Trial court did not err in refusing to present the noncompliant auditor’s report to the jury because the report, which erroneously commingled the factual findings and legal conclusions, would impose a disadvantage and prejudice a camp in the camp’s efforts to obtain a fair resolution of the camp’s exceptions before a jury, and the parties stipulated to a procedure in which the case would be decided without recommitting the auditor’s report for correction. Camp Cherokee, Inc. v. Marina Lane, LLC, 316 Ga. App. 366, 729 S.E.2d 510, 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 563 (2012).

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

C.J.S. 20 C.J.S., Counties, § 216 et seq.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1987–2012 · leading case: Camp Cherokee, Inc. v. Marina Lane, LLC, 729 S.E.2d 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Camp Cherokee, Inc. v. Marina Lane, LLC, 729 S.E.2d 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Since Marina Lane’s claims were not supported by the evidence, the trial court’s ruling was authorized. 2. Marina Lane next argues that the trial court erred in ruling that the auditor’s report could not be presented to the jury.”

McCaughey v. Murphy, 473 S.E.2d 762 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 4× “, 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.”

E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Waters, 681 S.E.2d 651 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “OCGA §§ 9-7-8, 9-7-14 (a). The appointment order, however, does not contemplate a report and the filing of exceptions, but rather a procedure of de novo appeals from the special master’s rulings, with the parties being bound to those rulings during the pendency of such appeals.”

Atwood v. Sipple, 357 S.E.2d 273 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “The code then requires that “the auditor shall file the evidence and a report in which he shall clearly and separately state all rulings made by him, classify and state his findings, and report his conclusions upon the law and facts.”

McCaughey v. Murphy, 485 S.E.2d 511 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “The trial court then appointed an auditor to investigate all of the facts raised by the pleadings and the evidence and to make a report to the court pursuant to OCGA § 9-7-8. The court-appointed auditor filed four separate reports and reviewed hundreds of pages of documents.”

Murphy v. McCaughey, 586 S.E.2d 16 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “This case has been pending in Georgia’s courts since 1988, and it has appeared in the appellate courts three times prior to this appeal.”

Duff v. Postell (In re Postell), 132 B.R. 788 (D. Ga. 1991). · cites it 2× “While the parties have not addressed the collateral estoppel effect of the auditor’s findings, the issue is important because the findings relating to malicious injury are found in the Auditor’s Report rather than in the text of the Order and Judgment.”

Marina Lane, LLC v. Camp Cherokee, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Since Marina Lane’s claims were not supported by the evidence, the trial court’s ruling was authorized. 9 2. Marina Lane next argues that the trial court erred in ruling that the auditor’s report could not be presented to the jury.”

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.