Steven Mize, appearing pro se, appeals the trial court’s denial of his extraordinary motion for new trial as well as the trial court’s assessment of attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14.1 Because Mize failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion, we affirm the trial court’s order in that respect. However, the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees without specifying the conduct supporting the award. We therefore vacate that portion of the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1. “The grant or denial of an extraordinary motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Cit.” Patterson v. Whitehead , 224 Ga. App. 636, 639 3 481 SE2d 621 1997. “It appears to be well settled that the courts do not favor extraordinary motions, and that the grounds thereof must reveal facts such as ordinarily do not occur in the transaction of human affairs . . . and which were not discoverable in the exercise of proper diligence in time to be shown during the course of the trial.” Citations, punctuation, and emphasis omitted. Gibson Products Co. v. Addison , 120 Ga. App. 37, 38 169 SE2d 374 1969. See also Hightower v. Krystal Co. , 204 Ga. App. 823, 824 420 SE2d 762 1992 motion must be supported by showing of ” ‘some meritorious explanation’ ” as well as a meritorious defense.
The reason stated by Mize for his failure to file a timely motion for new trial is that “he made a mistake in reading the dates, honestly believing that the order was filed on January 27, 2003 which would have made the appeal timely.” This is not an error made by the clerk’s office, as in Martin v. Children’s Sesame , 188 Ga. App. 242 372 SE2d 648 1988, but is entirely attributable to Mize himself. We therefore cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Mize’s motion.
