Court Opinion

ID: 9589315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:43:32.011722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:01.653302
License: Public Domain

Banke, Judge,
dissenting.
In order to avoid “judicial chaos at the trial level,” the majority has concluded that a 4-day delay in paying costs is a sufficient cause for dismissing an appeal although appellant’s counsel has diligently *854attempted to pay the costs in a timely manner. Thus, having first lost her right to trial by jury on motion for summary judgment, the appellant has now lost her right of appeal through no fault of her own and no fault of her attorney. Under these circumstances, perhaps she may conclude that some judicial chaos has taken place at the appellate level as well as the trial level.
Code Ann. § 6-905 provides that the Appellate Practice Act “shall be liberally construed so as to bring about a decision on the merits of every case appealed, and to avoid dismissal of any case or refused to consider any points raised therein, except as may be specifically referred to herein.” While Code Ann. § 6-809 (b) empowers the trial court to dismiss an appeal upon a finding that the appellant has caused an unreasonable and inexcusable delay in the transmission of the record by failing to pay costs within the 20-day grace period, and while the appellate courts have traditionally been loath to interfere with the trial court’s discretion in this regard, it does not follow that we are powerless to correct a manifest abuse of that discretion.
In the case before us now, it is undisputed that the 4-day delay in question resulted from a bona fide clerical error and that the error was discovered and corrected by appellant’s counsel solely as a result of his own diligence and thoroughness in monitoring his cases. Thus, we are not dealing with a situation where the costs were finally paid in response to a motion to dismiss. On the contrary, we are apparently dealing with a situation in which the motion to dismiss was prompted by the corrective measures taken by appellant’s counsel. Compare Price v. Ortiz, 152 Ga. App. 651 (263 SE2d 527) (1979).
This case is clearly distinguishable from the cases cited by the majority in support of its decision. In Pickett v. Paine, 139 Ga. App. 508 (229 SE2d 90) (1976), the appellant deliberately delayed paying the costs so that he could gain additional time to contest an order of the trial court requiring him to post supersedeas bond. In Young v. Climatrol &c. Corp., 237 Ga. 53 (226 SE2d 737) (1976), the dismissal was reversed because the trial court had not exercised any discretion in determining that a 2-day delay was unreasonable as well as inexcusable. In ITT Indus. Credit Co. v. Burnham, 152 Ga. App. 641 (263 SE2d 482) (1979), the reasons proffered by appellant’s counsel for his delay in paying the costs were not disclosed, and it does not appear that appellant’s counsel exercised diligence in attempting to prevent the delay.
In Young v. Climatrol &c. Corp., supra, at 55, the Supreme Court stated: “In considering the question of unreasonable delay, it should be remembered that the time provided for filing the transcript or record is not jurisdictional, but merely a means of avoiding *855unreasonable delay so that the case can be presented on the earliest possible calendar in the appellate courts.” I would hold under the undisputed facts of this case that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the 4-day delay in paying costs was unreasonable and inexcusable, and I would consequently reach the merits of this appeal.