Court Opinion

ID: 9850251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:54:02.398341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:33.772028
License: Public Domain

ANDREWS, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to rescind a dismissal with prejudice signed by Sanson’s attorney. Because there is nothing in the record before us showing an abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision, I believe this Court is improperly substituting its judgment for that of the lower court. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.
Under OCGA § 9-11-60 (g), clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record may be corrected by the court at any time. Accordingly, although I agree that the trial court had the authority to correct the error, I find no support for the contention that *558the trial court had the obligation to do so. The Code section is clearly permissive, not mandatory. Accordingly, the decision whether to grant motions to correct clerical mistakes under this Code section remains entirely within the broad discretion of the trial court.
Decided November 28, 2005.
Richard D. Hobbs, for appellants.
Barrickman, Allred & Young, William B. Barrickman, Sharon W. Ware & Associates, Kay D. Thompson, Saveli & Williams, Robert E. Mulholland, Goodman, McGuffey, Lindsey & Johnson, Thomas J. Lehman, for appellee.
Further, and contrary to the majority’s opinion, I do not agree that Page v. Holiday Inns, 245 Ga. 12 (262 SE2d 783) (1980), mandates a different conclusion. In that case, the attorney dictated and signed a voluntary order of dismissal with prejudice. The attorney did not read the order before signing it to insure that it stated “without prejudice” as was his intention. Id. I agree that Page appears to be applicable in this case and would have supported a decision to grant the motion to set aside under OCGA § 9-11-60 (g). Page can also be read, however, to support the trial court’s decision not to grant the motion. In Page, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision and reversed the Court of Appeals’ holding that the trial court had abused its discretion. See Holiday Inns v. Page, 151 Ga. App. 55 (258 SE2d 909) (1979). Likewise, on the record before us, I find nothing to support an abuse of discretion by the trial court in this case.