In this action for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy to breach a fiduciary duty involving the development of a $40,000,000 apartment complex, Premier Georgia Management Co. “Premier” appeals the trial court’s one-sentence orders granting summary judgment to the defendants, Realty Management Corp. d/b/a Lane Co. “RMC”, Realty Development Corp. “RDC”, Lane Realty Advisors collectively, the “Lane Companies”, George H. Lane, III, and Columbus Hotel Assoc., L.P. “Columbus”. Premier argues that the trial court erred in: 1 holding that defendants, neither singly nor in conspiracy, defrauded Premier; 2 holding that Lane did not breach a fiduciary duty to Premier; and 3 granting summary judgment to defendants, other than Lane, on Premier’s claim for conspiracy to breach a fiduciary duty, because a material issue of fact exists as whether defendants conspired to aid and abet Lane in his breach of fiduciary duty to Premier. For the reasons which follow, we affirm. 1. Although Court of Appeals Rule 25 a 1 and c 3 iii require that parties cite to the record by specific volume of the record and page number, counsel for defendants have failed to comply with the volume requirement and counsel for Premier has failed to comply with either requirement in his statement of facts.1 Accordingly, if we have omitted any facts or failed to locate some evidence in the record, the responsibility rests with counsel.2
2. Premier argues that the affidavits filed in support of Columbus’s motion for summary judgment were untimely and that Premier moved to strike them. Premier further asserts that Columbus never sought or obtained an order extending the time for filing the affidavits and that, therefore, the trial court erred in granting Columbus’s motion for summary judgment because “the untimely-filed affidavits were erroneously relied upon by the trial court.” We disagree. Because Premier never obtained a ruling on its motions to strike the affidavits, the trial court did not err in relying on the affidavits. “It is the duty of counsel to obtain a ruling on his motion, and the failure to do so will ordinarily result in a waiver.”3 As Premier has waived any objection to the affidavits, the trial court properly relied on them in ruling on the motion for summary judgment.
