GA Code § 9-7-1 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 7 - Auditors|§ 9-7-1. Duties of Auditor

 The duties heretofore performed by a master in the superior court shall be performed by an auditor.   (Ga. L. 1894, p. 123, § 3; Ga. L. 1895, p. 47, § 1; Civil Code 1895, § 4581; Civil Code 1910, § 5127; Code 1933, § 10-101.)   Cross references.   - Appointment and powers of special master in superior court for determination of just and adequate compensation in eminent domain proceeding, § 22-2-100 et seq.   Law reviews.   - For annual survey of law on trial practice and procedure, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 339 (2010).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS    Masters in equity cases, both special and standing, have been abolished since the approval of Ga. L. 1894, p. 123. Sengstacke v. American Missionary Ass'n, 196 Ga. 539, 26 S.E.2d 891 (1943).   Notice of consideration of appointment of special master required.    - Although the parties were on notice that the trial court was considering the appointment of an auditor, the trial court's failure to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before appointing a special master violated Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 46(B)(1); the trial court otherwise failed to make findings required by Rule 46. Petrakopoulos v. Vranas, 325 Ga. App. 332, 750 S.E.2d 779 (2013).   Appointment improper.    - In an action for judicial dissolution of an LLC, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, the trial court abused the court's discretion in appointing the special master/auditor under Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 46 and O.C.G.A. § 9-7-1 et seq., since the appointed person was performing an impermissible combination of roles by acting as an investigator, witness, and judge of fact and law, which were at odds with the role of special master. A&M Hospitalities, LLC v. Alimchandani, Ga. App. , S.E.2d (Mar. 16, 2021).   Form of order.    - Trial court did not err by issuing an order because the court did not actually name and appoint an auditor and/or special master but, rather, the order simply granted the request for an auditor and directed the parties to submit the names of three possible auditors from whom the trial court could eventually make an appointment; thus, the matters mandated under Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 46 did not have to be followed. Potts v. Rueda, 345 Ga. App. 389, 813 S.E.2d 412 (2018), cert. denied, No. S18C1081, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 721 (Ga. 2018).   Appeal from review of auditor's report.    - Where the auditor did not submit a final report containing separate findings of fact and conclusions of law for the superior court's review, the judgment of the court was directly appealable. McCaughey v. Murphy, 267 Ga. 64, 473 S.E.2d 762 (1996).    Cited in King v. Bank of Weston, 166 Ga. 463, 143 S.E. 423 (1928); Henderson v. Lott, 170 Ga. 261, 152 S.E. 98 (1930); Hicks v. Atlanta Trust Co., 187 Ga. 314, 200 S.E. 301 (1938); AAA Pest Control, Inc. v. Murray, 207 Ga. App. 631, 428 S.E.2d 657 (1993); Alston & Bird LLP v. Mellon Ventures II, L.P., 307 Ga. App. 640, 706 S.E.2d 652 (2010).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 27A Am. Jur. 2d, Equity, § 226 et seq.   ALR.    - Conclusiveness of or weight attached to findings of fact of master in chancery, 33 A.L.R. 745.