Matthew Cuyler appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, which affirmed the court’s judgment in favor of Capital One Bank USA, N. A., on the bank’s suit on an account and a counterclaim filed by Cuyler. He contends that the trial court erred in ruling in favor of the bank on its complaint, directing a verdict in favor of the bank on his fraud counterclaim, engaging in ex parte communications with the bank’s attorney, failing to timely rule on his motions, utilizing a misleading jury verdict form, and allowing the bank to file a separate garnishment action. For the following reasons, we affirm. The record shows that, on April 15, 2008, the bank filed a suit on a credit card account, claiming that Cuyler owed the bank $835.22 in principal, plus interest and other fees. Cuyler responded to the complaint and asserted a counterclaim.1 During the jury trial, Cuyler did not dispute the amount of his debt or his liability to the bank on the credit card account, nor did he present any evidence to support his counterclaim for fraud. The trial court entered a directed verdict in favor of the bank on its complaint and on Cuyler’s fraud counterclaim, but submitted Cuyler’s remaining counterclaim for breach of contract to the jury. The jury found in favor of the bank on the counterclaim, and the court entered a final judgment on October 9, 2009. Cuyler filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict “jnov” or, in the alternative, a motion for new trial,2 which the court denied on December 22, 2009. This appeal followed.
1. Cuyler contends that the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of the bank on its complaint and on his counterclaim. As noted above, Cuyler has failed to include in the record on appeal a copy of his counterclaim, nor has he included a copy of the transcript of the jury trial or the transcript of any hearing. In order for an appellate court to make a determination about the correctness of a judgment at issue, it is the appellant’s duty to include in the record on appeal the items necessary for the appellate court to objectively review the evidence and proceedings giving rise to the judgment. . . . In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the trial court’s findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence and its judgment is thus affirmed. Citations omitted. Kirkendall v. Decker , 271 Ga. 189, 191 516 SE2d 73 1999. See Tullis Devs. v. 3M Constr. , 282 Ga. App. 335, 339 638 SE2d 787 2006 in the absence of a transcript or a reasonable substitute therefor, we accept the lower court’s factual findings.
