Fine v. Fine

The trial court did not err in ruling on the wife's motion for a new trial before completion of a transcript, which the wife never requested.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant Carrie Fine “Wife” and appellee Robert Fine “Husband” married in October 2004 and separated in July 2005. Husband filed for divorce; Wife answered and counterclaimed for alimony. Although Wife timely filed a request for a jury trial, when the parties and their counsel appeared before the court, the case was heard without a jury. The court thereafter entered a decree in which it granted the divorce and divided the property but awarded no alimony to either party. Wife timely filed a pro se motion for new trial, challenging, inter alia, the court’s disallowance of a jury trial. The hearing on the motion was set for May 25, 2006, but the day before the hearing Wife filed a motion for a continuance “until the next term of court,” in which she noted that the transcript “has not yet been produced to the Defendant-Wife for her review and preparation of her argument for a new trial” and requested that she be provided a copy “at no charge.” The trial court granted the continuance and reset the hearing on Wife’s motion for June 21, 2006. Wife filed a second motion for continuance on June 16, repeating her statements from the previous motion and adding, inter alia, that the transcript was still not available. The trial court did not grant this second motion and proceeded to rule on Wife’s motion for new trial. In its order denying the motion, the trial court noted that it had conducted an inquiry and found that Wife had not contacted the court reporter in regard to preparation of a trial transcript.

We automatically granted Wife’s discretionary appeal pursuant to this Court’s pilot project. See Wright v. Wright , 277 Ga. 133 587 SE2d 600 2003. No transcript of the proceedings was included on appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-41 c duty of appellant to have transcript prepared at appellant’s expense. See also Quarterman v. Edwards , 169 Ga. App. 300 2 312 SE2d 643 1983 no right to free transcript for indigent in appellate, civil proceeding.

Fine v. Fine

The trial court did not err in ruling on the wife's motion for a new trial before completion of a transcript, which the wife never requested.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report