Fortson v. Brown

A recommendation to seek legal advice did not rise to the level of improper conduct necessary to prove tortious interference.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Major Fortson, proceeding pro se both below and on appeal, filed a complaint appearing to allege tortious interference with contractual relations against Clifford Brown and Brown’s employer, Regions Bank collectively “Appellees”. The Superior Court of Habersham County granted summary judgment to the Appellees, finding that Fortson had failed to provide any admissible evidence to support his claim. Fortson appeals the grant of summary judgment, and we affirm, for the following reasons. 1. As an initial matter, we note that Fortson’s brief does not contain a single citation to the record, in violation of the rules of this Court. Court of Appeals Rule 25 c 2 specifically provides that in the absence of proper reference to the record, the Court will not search for or consider such enumeration. Furthermore, Fortson’s brief does not comport with Court of Appeals Rule 25 a 1, as it does not contain a succinct and accurate statement of the proceedings below and the material facts relevant to the appeal, nor does it state the method by which each enumeration of error was preserved for consideration on appeal. Although Fortson is acting pro se, that status does not relieve him of the obligation to comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of the law, including the rules of this court. Indeed, it is not the function of this court to cull the record on behalf of a party in search of instances of error. The burden is upon the party alleging error to show it affirmatively in the record. Thus, because Fortson has failed to support his enumerations by a single citation to the record, his appeal presents nothing for consideration. Nevertheless, because the record in this case is fairly small, and the Appellees have provided sufficient citations to the record, we will address the merits of Fortson’s appeal.1

2. In two conclusory arguments, Fortson contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Appellees because he was prevented from producing evidence to prove the allegations of his complaint. We disagree.

Fortson v. Brown

A recommendation to seek legal advice did not rise to the level of improper conduct necessary to prove tortious interference.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report