Simmons v. SOPRAMCO III, LLC

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Simmons v. SOPRAMCO III, LLC

630 S.E.2d 61, 278 Ga. App. 830, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 743, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 244

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 7, 2006

DocketA06A0190

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 630 S.E.2d 61 (Simmons v. SOPRAMCO III, LLC) 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

Simmons v. SOPRAMCO III, LLC, 630 S.E.2d 61, 278 Ga. App. 830, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 743, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 244 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MIKELL, Judge.

Johnny Simmons appeals from the trial court’s order dated August 25, 2005, granting judgment to Sopramco III, LLC, in its dispossessory action against Simmons. In his pro se appellate brief, Simmons contends that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the foreclosure sale of his property took place before he filed for bankruptcy. He also disputes the balance owed under the security deed. However, Simmons’s arguments are not supported by reference to the record or citation of authority, as required by our Rule 25. 1

Furthermore, the trial court’s order shows that the matter came before the trial court in a nonjury trial, after which, based on the argument and the evidence, the trial court found that Sopramco was *831 entitled to a writ of possession. Simmons failed to request that a transcript of these proceedings be included in the record.

Decided March 7, 2006 Reconsideration denied April 13, 2006. Johnny Simmons, pro se. McCullough & Payne, Michael D. Payne, for appellee.

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 appellant, [Simmons] had the burden to affirmatively show error by the record. This he failed to do. Therefore, we must presume the trial court’s judgment granting [Sopramco] a writ of possession is correct.

(Citations and footnotes omitted.) Wimbley v. Washington Mut. Bank, 271 Ga. App. 477, 478 (610 SE2d 124) (2005). See also Archer v. Pryer, 275 Ga. App. 663 (621 SE2d 601) (2005). The trial court’s judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Blackburn, P. J., and Adams, J., concur.

1

Simmons also fails to abide by our Rule 28 (a) (1) by requesting oral argument in his brief rather than in a separate document certifying, among other things, that opposing counsel has been notified of the request. Simmons’s request for oral argument is denied.

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

MIKELL, Judge.

Johnny Simmons appeals from the trial court’s order dated August 25, 2005, granting judgment to Sopramco III, LLC, in its dispossessory action against Simmons. In his pro se appellate brief, Simmons contends that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the foreclosure sale of his property took place before he filed for bankruptcy. He also disputes the balance owed under the security deed. However, Simmons’s arguments are not supported by reference to the record or citation of authority, as required by our Rule 25. 1

Furthermore, the trial court’s order shows that the matter came before the trial court in a nonjury trial, after which, based on the argument and the evidence, the trial court found that Sopramco was *831 entitled to a writ of possession. Simmons failed to request that a transcript of these proceedings be included in the record.

Decided March 7, 2006 Reconsideration denied April 13, 2006. Johnny Simmons, pro se. McCullough & Payne, Michael D. Payne, for appellee.

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 appellant, [Simmons] had the burden to affirmatively show error by the record. This he failed to do. Therefore, we must presume the trial court’s judgment granting [Sopramco] a writ of possession is correct.

(Citations and footnotes omitted.) Wimbley v. Washington Mut. Bank, 271 Ga. App. 477, 478 (610 SE2d 124) (2005). See also Archer v. Pryer, 275 Ga. App. 663 (621 SE2d 601) (2005). The trial court’s judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Blackburn, P. J., and Adams, J., concur.

1

Simmons also fails to abide by our Rule 28 (a) (1) by requesting oral argument in his brief rather than in a separate document certifying, among other things, that opposing counsel has been notified of the request. Simmons’s request for oral argument is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

630 S.E.2d 61, 278 Ga. App. 830, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 743, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmons-v-sopramco-iii-llc-gactapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack