concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully concur in all divisions except Division 8, from which I respectfully dissent.
It appears that the appeal was taken up for delay only, so that appellee should be awarded damages for frivolous appeal as allowed by OCGA § 5-6-6.
Among the indications of frivolousness is the lack of substance of those points raised on appeal where we actually reach the merits. More telling is the enumerating of a number of points which clearly were waived or are not even argued, thus adding nothing but bulk.
Allowing unnecessarily protracted litigation without sanction makes the courts complicitous in the costs and delay which the public validly criticizes. It also prices the process out of reach for countless people who have legitimate claims and it outdistances the time when they are entitled to finality.1 Thirdly, frivolous appeals clog the publicly-funded courts and cut into the time and resources needed for legitimate appeals.
In considering whether to appeal, the party losing at the trial court level should feel a burden to pursue only an arguably meritorious appeal which has some genuine chance for reversal.
Looking at the size of the record in this case, the nature of the dispute, and the manner in which the appeal was presented, it is evident that appellant is simply buying time because it loathes paying the judgment. The costs, which are more than will be met by post-judgment interest, should not be borne by the appellee, much less the courts. It would be a judicious exercise of the power residing in the Court by virtue of OCGA § 5-6-6 to award the additional damages authorized. See Prattes v. Southeast Ceramics, 132 Ga. App. 584, 586 (3) (208 SE2d 600) (1974).
I am authorized to state that Judge Sognier joins in this opinion.
Well over a year in this case.