Putnam County v. Adams

From April 1998 until May 2001, Putnam County retained a private attorney, Dorothy Adams, to function as county attorney. When the representation ended, many closed files and some open files remained in Adams’s possession and a dispute arose as to the procedure for transferring the files to a new county attorney, as well as issues regarding which files needed to be transferred, which documents had already been produced, and who would pay certain costs involved, including copying charges. When the parties could not agree on these details, Putnam County filed suit seeking an order requiring Adams to turn over all of the files. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted partial relief in favor of Putnam County. Not satisfied with the specifics, Putnam County appeals. Prior to trial, the court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment.1 At trial, the trial court heard evidence and ultimately held that Adams must turn over all files regarding any pending litigation or transaction and that she must bear any associated expenses. The court also held that the county was entitled to copy any closed files at its own expense, although Adams would be responsible for any costs she incurred overseeing Putnam County’s effort copying these files.

The standard for appellate review of a bench trial is the clearly erroneous test: On appeal from a bench trial, we do not retry the case. Rather, the appellate standard of review for nonjury trials of disputed material facts is the clearly erroneous test, also known as the “any evidence” rule. As such, the sole question for determination on appeal is whether there is any evidence to authorize the trial court’s judgment. It is our duty to construe the evidence to uphold the judgment rather than upsetting it. This is true regardless of whether evidence also existed that may have supported the appellant’s position. Punctuation omitted. Sledge v. Peach County , 276 Ga. App. 780 624 SE2d 288 2005. “In the absence of legal error, an appellate court is without jurisdiction to interfere with a judgment supported by some evidence.” Id.