OLUBAJO v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (2006)

In this dispossessory action, Abimbola Olubajo, acting pro se, appeals the trial court's grant of a writ of possession in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”).   Because Olubajo failed to file a transcript of the bench trial, we affirm.

Deutsche Bank instituted dispossessory proceedings against Olubajo, claiming that Olubajo was a tenant at sufferance after a foreclosure sale.   Olubajo answered, claiming simply that the foreclosure sale was “wrongful.”   Following a bench trial, the court issued a writ of possession in favor of Deutsche Bank.

 On appeal, Olubajo makes various arguments based on factual issues that would require us to review the evidence submitted at trial.

[Olubajo], however, failed to file a transcript of the proceedings and apparently did not attempt to reconstruct the transcript as allowed by OCGA § 5-6-41(g) and (i).   When a transcript of the evidence is necessary, as it is here, and the appellant omits it from the record or fails to submit a statutorily authorized substitute, we must assume that the evidence supported the grant of a writ of possession.   As the appellant[], Olubajo had the burden to affirmatively show error by the record.   This [Olubajo] failed to do.   Therefore, we must presume the trial court's judgment granting [Deutsche Bank] a writ of possession is correct.

Harden v. Young.¹  See Simmons v. Sopramco III, LLC.²

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Harden v. Young, 268 Ga.App. 619, 620, 606 S.E.2d 6 (2004).

2.   Simmons v. Sopramco III, LLC, 278 Ga.App. 830, 630 S.E.2d 61 (2006).

BLACKBURN, Presiding Judge.

MIKELL and ADAMS, JJ., concur.