Mack v. Third Bedford-Pines Apartments, Ltd.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mack v. Third Bedford-Pines Apartments, Ltd.

389 S.E.2d 404, 193 Ga. App. 838, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 1655

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 5, 1989

DocketA89A1436

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 389 S.E.2d 404 (Mack v. Third Bedford-Pines Apartments, Ltd.) 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

Mack v. Third Bedford-Pines Apartments, Ltd., 389 S.E.2d 404, 193 Ga. App. 838, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 1655 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinions

Carley, Chief Judge.

1. This direct appeal is from the judgment in a dispossessory action wherein the total amount of rent due was found by the trial court to be $2,693, an amount which is certainly greater than $2,500. Despite the payment into the registry of the court by appellant and the [839]*839draw-down by appellee of a portion of this amount, $2,693 was the total amount in controversy because appellant had claimed entitlement to all such funds as he had paid in and had been drawn-down by appellee. See OCGA § 44-7-54 (c). Accordingly, appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for appellant’s failure to comply with the discretionary appeal provisions of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (3) is denied.

2. For the most part, appellant’s enumerations of error require a consideration of the transcript of the proceedings before the trial court. However, no transcript has been filed and the clerk of the trial court has informed this court that there is no transcript of the proceedings to be filed. “ ‘It is well settled that, absent a transcript, we are bound to assume that the trial judge’s findings are supported by competent evidence.’ [Cit.] ” McClindon v. Wright, 160 Ga. App. 348 (2) (287 SE2d 74) (1981).

3. Appellant’s remaining enumerations of error have been considered and found to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., concurs. Beasley, J., concurs specially.

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

Carley, Chief Judge.

1. This direct appeal is from the judgment in a dispossessory action wherein the total amount of rent due was found by the trial court to be $2,693, an amount which is certainly greater than $2,500. Despite the payment into the registry of the court by appellant and the [839]*839draw-down by appellee of a portion of this amount, $2,693 was the total amount in controversy because appellant had claimed entitlement to all such funds as he had paid in and had been drawn-down by appellee. See OCGA § 44-7-54 (c). Accordingly, appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for appellant’s failure to comply with the discretionary appeal provisions of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (3) is denied.

2. For the most part, appellant’s enumerations of error require a consideration of the transcript of the proceedings before the trial court. However, no transcript has been filed and the clerk of the trial court has informed this court that there is no transcript of the proceedings to be filed. “ ‘It is well settled that, absent a transcript, we are bound to assume that the trial judge’s findings are supported by competent evidence.’ [Cit.] ” McClindon v. Wright, 160 Ga. App. 348 (2) (287 SE2d 74) (1981).

3. Appellant’s remaining enumerations of error have been considered and found to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., concurs. Beasley, J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 S.E.2d 404, 193 Ga. App. 838, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 1655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-v-third-bedford-pines-apartments-ltd-gactapp-1989.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack