Baldwin v. National Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Baldwin v. National Bank

300 S.E.2d 209, 165 Ga. App. 381, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1878

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 26, 1983

Docket65142

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 S.E.2d 209 (Baldwin v. National Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baldwin v. National Bank, 300 S.E.2d 209, 165 Ga. App. 381, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1878 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Judge.

Appellants’ notice of appeal states that it is taken from an “order and Judgment of the State Court of Fulton County, entered on the 19[th] day of July, 1982 . . .” The only judgment of that court entered on that date in the record before us is an order, entered pursuant to appellee’s motion, which holds appellants in contempt of court for their refusal to comply with a previous order. The only enumeration of error asserted is that this order of July 19,1982 fails to comply with OCGA § 9-11-52 (Code Ann. § 81A-152), requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law.

“The application for contempt presented in this case was a motion before the court, not coming within the ambit of [OCGA § 9-11-52 (Code Ann. § 81A-152)], and, as such, the trial judge did not err in failing to make special findings of fact and conclusions of law.” Fields v. Fields, 240 Ga. 173, 174 (1) (240 SE2d 58) (1977).

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, C. J., and Quillian, P. J., concur. [382]*382Decided January 26, 1983 — Rehearing denied February 9, 1983 — Leroy Baldwin, pro se. Douglas Mann, Steven J. Knezo, for appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carley, Judge.

Appellants’ notice of appeal states that it is taken from an “order and Judgment of the State Court of Fulton County, entered on the 19[th] day of July, 1982 . . .” The only judgment of that court entered on that date in the record before us is an order, entered pursuant to appellee’s motion, which holds appellants in contempt of court for their refusal to comply with a previous order. The only enumeration of error asserted is that this order of July 19,1982 fails to comply with OCGA § 9-11-52 (Code Ann. § 81A-152), requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law.

“The application for contempt presented in this case was a motion before the court, not coming within the ambit of [OCGA § 9-11-52 (Code Ann. § 81A-152)], and, as such, the trial judge did not err in failing to make special findings of fact and conclusions of law.” Fields v. Fields, 240 Ga. 173, 174 (1) (240 SE2d 58) (1977).

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, C. J., and Quillian, P. J., concur. [382]*382Decided January 26, 1983 — Rehearing denied February 9, 1983 — Leroy Baldwin, pro se. Douglas Mann, Steven J. Knezo, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 S.E.2d 209, 165 Ga. App. 381, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-v-national-bank-gactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack