Auditor's Fees

1. Law
2. Georgia Code
3. Civil Practice
4. Auditors
5. Auditor's Fees

1. The fees of an auditor to whom a case, whether legal or equitable, has been referred shall be determined and fixed by the trial judge making the referral or by any other judge having jurisdiction of the case and serving in the place and stead of the trial judge. The fees so determined and fixed may be apportioned between and among the parties at the discretion of the judge.
2. The court with consent of the parties may fix the fees of the auditor in advance and incorporate the same in the order making the appointment.
3. The fees of an auditor, as determined and fixed by the judge, shall be included in and made a part of the judgment of the court. The fees of the auditor shall be assessed as court costs and shall be paid prior to the filing of any appeal from the judgment of the court; provided, however, that if such fees have not been determined and assessed at the time of filing any such appeal, the same shall be paid within 30 days from the date of assessment.

(Ga. L. 1894, p. 123, § 22; Civil Code 1895, §§ 4602, 4603; Civil Code 1910, §§ 5148, 5149; Code 1933, §§ 10-501, 10-502; Ga. L. 1963, p. 620, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 9; Ga. L. 1988, p. 408, § 1.)

Law reviews.

- For annual survey of law on real property, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 283 (2010).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Construction with Quiet Title Act.

- Provisions of O.C.G.A. § 9-7-22(c) requiring the payment of auditors' fees prior to the filing of an appeal did not apply to special masters appointed under the Quiet Title Act, O.C.G.A. § 23-3-60 et seq., pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 23-3-43 and23-3-63, and an appeal was not dismissed due to failure to pay the special master's fees. Davis v. Harpagon Co., LLC, 300 Ga. App. 644, 686 S.E.2d 259 (2009) was overruled to the extent it was to the contrary. Nix v. 230 Kirkwood Homes, LLC, 300 Ga. 91, 793 S.E.2d 402 (2016).

Apportionment of fees.

- In the allowance of auditor's fees under this section, the court may in its discretion apportion the fees between the parties. Moore v. Dickenson & Williams, 117 Ga. 887, 45 S.E. 241 (1903); Central of Ga. Ry. v. Central Trust Co., 135 Ga. 472, 69 S.E. 708 (1910) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-7-22).

Apportionment will stand unless judge abuses discretion.

- In an equitable proceeding, it is within the discretion of the trial judge to award the costs of court as the facts may warrant; and, unless the judge's discretion is abused in so doing, the judge's judgment will not be disturbed. Logan v. Mobley, 170 Ga. 615, 153 S.E. 763 (1930).

In equity cases, the judge in the judge's discretion may apportion an auditor's fee between the parties, or even award it against the successful party; and the Supreme Court will not interfere unless discretion has been abused. Hicks v. Atlanta Trust Co., 187 Ga. 314, 200 S.E. 301 (1938); Brown v. Parks, 190 Ga. 540, 9 S.E.2d 897 (1940).

Judge did not abuse judicial discretion in dividing auditor's fee and stenographic costs equally between parties, where it did not appear that the defendant administrator participated in any alleged fraud by the claimant wife in procuring the letters of administration, and the orders and proceedings for an accounting showed that there were matters of bona fide disputes between the parties, as to a part of which the defendant administrator prevailed. Brown v. Parks, 190 Ga. 540, 9 S.E.2d 897 (1940).

Entire fee may be taxed upon either party. Fitzpatrick v. McGregor, 133 Ga. 332, 65 S.E. 859 (1909).

This section provides how fee may be fixed in advance. Avera Loan & Inv. Co. v. National Sur. Co., 32 Ga. App. 319, 123 S.E. 45 (1924) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-7-22).

Cited in Augusta Naval Stores Co. v. Forlaw, 133 Ga. 138, 65 S.E. 370 (1909); Christian v. Bremer, 199 Ga. 285, 34 S.E.2d 40 (1945); Mendenhall v. Kingloff, 215 Ga. 726, 113 S.E.2d 449 (1960); Sorrentino v. Boston Mut. Life Ins. Co., 206 Ga. App. 771, 426 S.E.2d 594 (1992).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 27A Am. Jur. 2d, Equity, § 228.

ALR.

- Amount of master's fee in divorce proceedings, 89 A.L.R.2d 377.

Download our app to see the most-to-date content.