Olubajo v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

633 S.E.2d 543, 280 Ga. App. 154, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1760, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 666
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 7, 2006
DocketA06A1358
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 633 S.E.2d 543 (Olubajo v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.) 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
Olubajo v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 633 S.E.2d 543, 280 Ga. App. 154, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1760, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 666 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Blackburn, Presiding Judge.

In this dispossessory action, Abimbola Olubajo, acting pro se, appeals the trial court’s grant of a writ of possession in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”). Because Olubajo failed to file a transcript of the bench trial, we affirm.

Deutsche Bank instituted dispossessory proceedings against Olubajo, claiming that Olubajo was a tenant at sufferance after a foreclosure sale. Olubajo answered, claiming simply that the foreclosure sale was “wrongful.” Following a bench trial, the court issued a writ of possession in favor of Deutsche Bank.

On appeal, Olubajo makes various arguments based on factual issues that would require us to review the evidence submitted at trial.

[Olubajo], however, failed to file a transcript of the proceedings and apparently did not attempt to reconstruct the transcript as allowed by OCGA § 5-6-41 (g) and (i). When a transcript of the evidence is necessary, as it is here, and the appellant omits it from the record or fails to submit a statutorily authorized substitute, we must assume that the evidence supported the grant of a writ of possession. As the *155 appellant[, Olubajo] had the burden to affirmatively show error by the record. This [Olubajo] failed to do. Therefore, we must presume the trial court’s judgment granting [Deutsche Bank] a writ of possession is correct.
Decided June 7, 2006 — Reconsideration denied June 27, 2006. Abimbola O. Olubajo, pro se. McCalla & Raymer, Robert M. Sheffield, for appellee.

Harden v. Young. 1 See Simmons v. Sopramco III, LLC. 2

Judgment affirmed.

Mikell and Adams, JJ., concur.
1

Harden v. Young, 268 Ga. App. 619, 620 (606 SE2d 6) (2004).

2

Simmons v. Sopramco III, LLC, 278 Ga. App. 830 (630 SE2d 61) (2006).

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

Related

Williams v. Marchant
697 S.E.2d 288 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)
Owens v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
684 S.E.2d 99 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Siratu v. Diane Investment Grour Ltd.
679 S.E.2d 359 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Lambrix v. Bhimani
673 S.E.2d 620 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Cronin v. Homesales, Inc.
674 S.E.2d 35 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Miley v. THORNBURG MORTGAGE HOME LOANS, INC.
668 S.E.2d 560 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2008)
Keita v. K & S TRADING
663 S.E.2d 362 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2008)
Anthony v. US Bank National Association
645 S.E.2d 12 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
633 S.E.2d 543, 280 Ga. App. 154, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1760, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olubajo-v-deutsche-bank-national-trust-co-gactapp-2006.