Following a jury verdict and judgment in favor of Schofield Interior Contractors, Inc., and Ron Marshall collectively, “the plaintiffs”, Standard Building Company, Inc., Rob Morel, and Valentin Ciuperca collectively, “the defendants” filed post-judgment motions, which the trial court referred to a special master. The special master issued proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that the trial court dismiss the post-trial motions based on the defendants’ failure to file a trial transcript pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule “USCR” 46 G 2. In several enumerations of error, the defendants appeal the trial court’s subsequent order finding that the special master’s proposal was final. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. The record shows that the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants asserting claims for breach of contract, negligence, and fraud, seeking compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 13-6-11. Following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in the principal sum of $294,458.66 and the entry of judgment on March 11, 2009,1 the defendants filed a motion for new trial or JNOV on April 10, 2009. On May 22, 2009, the defendants wrote a letter to the trial court requesting that the court consider the motions without requiring the defendants to secure a copy of the trial transcript,2 noting “the court’s great familiarity with both the evidence and issues presented during the trial” and maintaining that resolution of the questions of law presented in the motions “may well render a transcript unnecessary.”
Thereafter, the trial court referred the defendants’ motion for new trial or JNOV to a special master on December 17, 2009. After a review of the pleadings, the special master entered a detailed “Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” on March 18, 2010,3 recommending dismissal of the post-trial motions based on the defendants’ failure to file a trial transcript in the year following the verdict and concluding that the transcript was essential to a determination of the issues raised in the motions.4
