Court Opinion

ID: 9849472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:40:39.485586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:02.444546
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
dissenting.
Code Ann. § 24-104 (6) states that every court has the power "[t]o amend and control its processes and orders, so as to make them conformable to law and justice; and to amend its own records, so as to make them conform to the truth.” (Emphasis supplied.) "The judge has a discretion in regulating and controlling the business of the court, and the appellate court should never interfere with the exercise of this discretion, unless it is plainly apparent that wrong has resulted from its abuse.” Banister v. Hubbard, 82 Ga. App. 813, 816 (62 SE2d 761) (1950). (Emphasis supplied.) Under the ruling in Cagle v. Dixon, 234 Ga. 698 (217 SE2d 598) (1975), the trial judge had every reason to modify the order involved here. The court in the Cagle case stated, at p. 700: "In summary, Smith states the rule that ordinarily a judgment should be modified under Code Ann. § 81A-160 (g) only 'where the clerical error or omission is obvious on the face of the record.’ However, both Smith and Park recognize an *59exception to this general principle where there has been a hearing on a motion to correct the judgment, and the evidence compels the conclusion that the omission was in fact a clerical error.” This court in McCarthy v. Garcia, 132 Ga. App. 426 (208 SE2d 198) (1974) affirmed a case in which the trial court, during the same term, after a hearing, substituted the words "without prejudice” where there had previously been the words "with prejudice.”
CPA § 60 (g), supra, dealing with clerical mistakes, reads, "Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising . . . may be corrected by the court at any time ... on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any as the court orders.” (Emphasis supplied.) Cook v. Kruger, 141 Ga. App. 815 (1) (234 SE2d 402) (1977), states in very clear terms that an order of dismissal erroneously entered by the court "is a part of the record of this case and arose therein from oversight.” This court approved the correction made in a part of the record of the Cook case, using CPA § 60 (g), supra, as its authority. The case at bar is certainly a like case. Here there is a mistake in the record before the court. The fact that the appellee dismissed the case does not keep the case from being a court record. It was filed in the court, served and later dismissed. This entire record, including the dismissal, is a court record; otherwise there would be no concern about the dismissal, because if this is not a binding and lasting court record, it would not be binding on the appellee herein. In Farmers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pollock, 52 Ga. App. 603 (184 SE 383) (1936), the court inadvertently signed an order dismissing the case on a demurrer. This court allowed the judge, at a subsequent term, to correct this error. Whether the court or appellee filed a dismissal, it is still a court record and may be corrected as per CPA § 60 (g), supra. If this dismissal is allowed to stand, appellee cannot refile, because it would be res judicata. The entire proceeding is a court record upon which all parties rely. To say otherwise is to say the trial court has the authority to use the record to deny a refiling on the grounds of dismissal with prejudice but does not have the authority to correct it as provided by CPA § 60 (g), supra.
I feel that every effort short of an obvious abuse of *60discretion should be made to give a party his day in court. We are going a long way to substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge in this case. No attorney in his right mind would voluntarily dismiss his complaint "with prejudice,” and we are invading the province of the trial judge to say he abused his discretion. He was present, knew the parties, the facts and circumstances surrounding the case and is in a much better position to determine whether or not any wrong would result from his amending the order nunc pro tunc, which he can do. Israel v. Joe Redwine Ins. Agency, 120 Ga. App. 14, 16 (169 SE2d 347) (1969).
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Deen, Judge Underwood and Judge Carley join in this dissent.