Smith v. Bank of America, N.A.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. Bank of America, N.A.

705 S.E.2d 692, 307 Ga. App. 592, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 122, 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 19

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 2011

DocketA11A0426

StatusPublished

This text of 705 S.E.2d 692 (Smith v. Bank of America, N.A.) 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

Smith v. Bank of America, N.A., 705 S.E.2d 692, 307 Ga. App. 592, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 122, 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 19 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLER, Presiding Judge.

Appellant Vivian H. Smith, pro se, has filed a timely appeal from a dispossessory order. For this Court to address the merits of the instant appeal, however, we must have a sufficient record before us. As the appellant, Smith bears the burden of providing such record. See Hensley v. Young, 273 Ga. App. 687, 688 (615 SE2d 771) (2005) (on motion for reconsideration). Generally, this requires a transcript of the evidence or an authorized substitute. See OCGA § 5-6-41 (g) and (i). Here, we have neither. The record consists only of the disposses-sory warrant, Smith’s answer with attachment by which she alleges that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), was not entitled to foreclose on her property because it held neither the promissory note nor the title to her residence when it “executed [the] Deed Under Power and Special Warranty Deed to [Appellee] Bank of America[ ] National Association].” Given the skeletal record before us, we are unable to meaningfully review any alleged error.

Under these circumstances, we must assume that the order of the trial court was proper. 1 See Harden v. Young, 268 Ga. App. 619, 620 (606 SE2d 6) (2004) (“When a transcript of the evidence is *593 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.”) (punctuation and footnotes omitted).

Decided January 20, 2011 Vivian H. Smith, pro se. Richard B. Maner, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Ellington, C. J., and Doyle, J., concur.

1

Smith’s motions to add Ocwen as a party and to reserve her defense on appeal are therefore denied as moot.

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

MILLER, Presiding Judge.

Appellant Vivian H. Smith, pro se, has filed a timely appeal from a dispossessory order. For this Court to address the merits of the instant appeal, however, we must have a sufficient record before us. As the appellant, Smith bears the burden of providing such record. See Hensley v. Young, 273 Ga. App. 687, 688 (615 SE2d 771) (2005) (on motion for reconsideration). Generally, this requires a transcript of the evidence or an authorized substitute. See OCGA § 5-6-41 (g) and (i). Here, we have neither. The record consists only of the disposses-sory warrant, Smith’s answer with attachment by which she alleges that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), was not entitled to foreclose on her property because it held neither the promissory note nor the title to her residence when it “executed [the] Deed Under Power and Special Warranty Deed to [Appellee] Bank of America[ ] National Association].” Given the skeletal record before us, we are unable to meaningfully review any alleged error.

Under these circumstances, we must assume that the order of the trial court was proper. 1 See Harden v. Young, 268 Ga. App. 619, 620 (606 SE2d 6) (2004) (“When a transcript of the evidence is *593 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.”) (punctuation and footnotes omitted).

Decided January 20, 2011 Vivian H. Smith, pro se. Richard B. Maner, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Ellington, C. J., and Doyle, J., concur.

1

Smith’s motions to add Ocwen as a party and to reserve her defense on appeal are therefore denied as moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

705 S.E.2d 692, 307 Ga. App. 592, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 122, 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-bank-of-america-na-gactapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack