Court Opinion

ID: 9578807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:48:38.737865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:30.393638
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I agree in theory with the majority that the reasoning of Cambron v. Canal Ins. Co., 246 Ga. 147 (269 SE2d 426) (1980) may apply to final judgments in an appropriate case. However, the holding of Cambron is one born of necessity. At the risk of overstatement, in its broadest sense Cambron remedies a situation where the losing party was not to blame for the failure to timely take steps to remedy an adverse judgment. See, e.g., Tucker Station, Ltd. v. Chalet I, 203 Ga. App. 383, 384 (1) (417 SE2d 40) (1992). So long as there is a supportable finding that the losing party was not at fault in failing to timely pursue the right of review or other remedy available to her, I would find no abuse of discretion in applying the Cambron procedure. However, no such finding can be supported in the present case.
First, the majority ignores the fact that plaintiff herself caused the dismissal by failing to appear at a peremptory calendar call. Second, even if I were willing to concede that plaintiff’s failure to appear was the result of excusable neglect, the failure to timely discover and endeavor to correct that omission for nine months remains. Third, the majority relies on the establishment of a novel notice requirement which serves no valid purpose. This plaintiff knew, or should have known, that she missed the calendar call; she knew, or should have known, the potential consequences of her failure to appear. Under the *268circumstances there is simply no excuse for Starks’s failure to apprise herself of the status of her case during the course of the succeeding six to nine months, and no conceivable basis on which to make a presumption to the contrary. Compare Wright v. Archer, 210 Ga. App. 607, 608 (1) (436 SE2d 775) (1993). Finally, while it is not proper to address the question of whether Starks is the victim of attorney neglect, I suggest that if such neglect exists, the procedure outlined in Cambrón is not the proper method to address it.
Decided July 13, 1994
Reconsideration denied July 29, 1994.
Beck, Owen & Murray, William M. Dallas III, for appellant.
Shepherd & Brown, Timothy N. Shepherd, Lane, O’Brien, Cas-well & Taylor, Stephen J. Caswell, Cramer & Peavy, Timothy C. Cramer, for appellee.
As a matter of law, Starks (or her present or former counsel) is at least partially to blame for her failure to appear at calendar call and for thereafter losing her right to refile her cause of action. The trial court’s application of Cambrón to these facts was therefore an abuse of discretion.
I am authorized to state that Judge Andrews joins in this dissent.