Woodson v. Burton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Woodson v. Burton

259 S.E.2d 657, 151 Ga. App. 401, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2613

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 4, 1979

Docket58241

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 S.E.2d 657 (Woodson v. Burton) 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

Woodson v. Burton, 259 S.E.2d 657, 151 Ga. App. 401, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2613 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

The appellees sued the appellant for an accounting for rents collected by the appellant from jointly owned property. A jury found for the appellees, judgment was entered accordingly,- and the Supreme Court affirmed in Woodson v. Burton, 241 Ga. 130 (243 SE2d 885) (1978). The City of Macon subsequently condemned the property in question, and the proceeds were impounded pursuant to court order to make good the appellees’ judgment. The appellees moved the court to disburse the funds to them to the extent necessary to satisfy the judgment; and, following a hearing, the court so ordered, making allowances for certain expenses by the appellant. The appellant now appeals this order. Held:

1. The alleged errors enumerated by the appellant concern matters which took place at the original trial, which, as indicated above, has already been the subject of an unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court. No error whatsoever has been shown in the trial court’s most recent order requiring the disbursement of the funds held by the receiver. Furthermore, neither the appellant’s brief nor her enumerations of error contain any page references to the record or transcript as required by Rule 18 (c) (3) of this court. Code Ann. § 24-3618 (c) (3). (New. Rule 15 (c) (3), Code Ann. § 24-3615 (c) (3)).

2. The appellees’ motion for assessment of damages for filing a frivolous appeal is denied, since it is clear from the appellant’s pro se brief that, even though she has raised no cognizable legal issue, she has prosecuted this appeal in a good-faith belief that reversible error was committed, rather than merely for the purpose of delay. In making this determination, we have given consideration to the fact that the appellant is representing herself and have thus held her to a lesser standard than we would have had her brief been submitted by an officer of this court.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Underwood, J., concur. Rehearing denied September 19, 1979. Frances D. Woodson, pro se. David L. Mincey, for appellees.

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

Banke, Judge.

The appellees sued the appellant for an accounting for rents collected by the appellant from jointly owned property. A jury found for the appellees, judgment was entered accordingly,- and the Supreme Court affirmed in Woodson v. Burton, 241 Ga. 130 (243 SE2d 885) (1978). The City of Macon subsequently condemned the property in question, and the proceeds were impounded pursuant to court order to make good the appellees’ judgment. The appellees moved the court to disburse the funds to them to the extent necessary to satisfy the judgment; and, following a hearing, the court so ordered, making allowances for certain expenses by the appellant. The appellant now appeals this order. Held:

1. The alleged errors enumerated by the appellant concern matters which took place at the original trial, which, as indicated above, has already been the subject of an unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court. No error whatsoever has been shown in the trial court’s most recent order requiring the disbursement of the funds held by the receiver. Furthermore, neither the appellant’s brief nor her enumerations of error contain any page references to the record or transcript as required by Rule 18 (c) (3) of this court. Code Ann. § 24-3618 (c) (3). (New. Rule 15 (c) (3), Code Ann. § 24-3615 (c) (3)).

2. The appellees’ motion for assessment of damages for filing a frivolous appeal is denied, since it is clear from the appellant’s pro se brief that, even though she has raised no cognizable legal issue, she has prosecuted this appeal in a good-faith belief that reversible error was committed, rather than merely for the purpose of delay. In making this determination, we have given consideration to the fact that the appellant is representing herself and have thus held her to a lesser standard than we would have had her brief been submitted by an officer of this court.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Underwood, J., concur. Rehearing denied September 19, 1979. Frances D. Woodson, pro se. David L. Mincey, for appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 S.E.2d 657, 151 Ga. App. 401, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodson-v-burton-gactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack