Case Name: BEASLEY v. SMITH et al.
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 2009-01-06
Citations: 295 Ga. App. 438
Docket Number: A08A2255
Parties: BEASLEY v. SMITH et al.
Judges: Barnes and Phipps, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 295
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
A08A2255.
BEASLEY v. SMITH et al.
(671 SE2d 920)
Decided January 6, 2009.
DaCara S. Brown, for appellant. Warlick, Tritt, Stebbins & Murray, William B. Warlick, for appellees.

Opinion:
JOHNSON, Presiding Judge.
Jamie and Ashley Smith sued their landlord, Jeana Beasley, for conversion and damage to personal property located in their residence. Beasley answered and counterclaimed for breach of the lease agreement. Following a bench trial, the trial court found for the Smiths on all claims, awarding them $6,795 in actual damages and $7,837 in attorney fees. Beasley appeals, and we affirm.
In three enumerations of error, Beasley argues that the evidence did not support the verdict. Specifically, she claims that the Smiths abandoned their personal property and the leased premises, that they failed to prove the value of the personal property, and that, given the insufficient evidence, the trial court should have granted her a new trial. Beasley, however, did not include a transcript of the bench trial in the record on appeal or obtain a statutorily acceptable substitute.
As we have consistently held, when an appellant fails to provide a transcript of the evidence, "we must rely upon the presumption in favor of the regularity of all proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction and assume that the evidence was sufficient to authorize the final judgment entered in the trial court." Beasley's one-sided, unsupported recitation of the witness testimony does not overcome this presumption. Accordingly, we affirm.
Judgment affirmed.
Barnes and Phipps, JJ., concur.
See OCGA § 5-6-41 (g), (i).
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Atlanta Public Schools v. Diamond, 261 Ga. App. 641, 644 (2) (583 SE2d 500) (2003).
See Keita v. K & S Trading, 292 Ga. App. 116, 117 (1) (663 SE2d 362) (2008).
See Diamond, supra; Keita, supra at 119 (2).