Milo D. Pinckney v. Marsha W. Mignott

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: November 14, 2024
• Docket: A24A1771
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ November 14, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A1771. PINCKNEY v. MIGNOTT.

Appellant Milo Pinckney has moved this Court to reconsider the denial of his motion to supplement the record with his repeated efforts to compile a transcript of the evidentiary hearing in this case. He did not request that the hearing be transcribed, but he has filed the following unofficial records: a video recording, a computer generated transcript, and now a recently prepared court reporter transcription of the video recording.

The parties do not agree on what the record should reflect, see OCGA § 5-6-41 (f), particularly with respect to any documentary evidence proffered by appellee Marsha Mignott, who had the burden of proof. The trial court is better situated to determine what transpired at the hearing, the correctness of the current transcript proffered by Pinckney, and what evidence was before the trial court when it ruled. Accordingly, Pinckney’s present motion to supplement remains DENIED, but this appeal is hereby REMANDED to the trial court to determine and certify what transpired below and/or enter any other order deemed appropriate under law. See OCGA § 5-6-48 (d) (authorizing the appellate court to direct the trial court to certify what transpired below). See also OCGA § 5-6-48 (c) (“[T]he trial court may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, order that the appeal be dismissed where there has been an unreasonable delay in the filing of the transcript and it is shown that the delay was inexcusable and was caused by such party.”). Appellant “shall have 30 days from the date of the mandated order to refile [his] notice[] of appeal, and upon the filing of such notice[] of appeal the case with the complete record and transcript[s] may be transmitted to the Court of Appeals for redocketing.” Galardi v. Steele-Inman, 259 Ga. App. 249, 249-250 (576 SE2d 555) (2002). See also Peterson v. Beasley, 274 Ga. 882 (561 S.E.2d 429) (2002) (case remanded because it was unclear whether certain documents had been admitted into evidence).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 11/14/2024 I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.