IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF GEORGIA

COURT OF APPEALS, FULTON COUNTY

ARTHUR WHITAKER, )
)
Plaintiffs, PRO SE )
)
vs. ) Case No.: A10A0320
)
WELLS FARGO )
Federal National Mortgage Assoc.
Defendants.

MOTION TO RECALL THE REMITTITUR

TO THE HORORABLE GLEN GALBAUGH, PRESIDING JUSTICE, AND TO THE ASSOCIATE

JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant/petitioner, Arthur Whitaker, respectfully moves this court for an order recalling the

remittitur and permitting him to reinstate his appeal in this case.

This motion is based upon the following points and authorities and the attached declarations.

March 5, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

Arthur Whitaker
Arthur Whitaker

1663 Golf Link Drive

Stone Mountain, Georgia 30088

(678) 907-2715

Pro Se

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

TO RECALL REMITTITUR

Following the order and judgment entered on February 12, 2010, a Remittitur was issued in response to

the actual names being omitted on the Proof of Service which was filed along with the Motion For

Reconsideration. Appellant did not receive any documentation from the court with regards to any items

omitted from the records or the Proof of Service. Appellant is 85 years old and acting Pro Se. Please see

exhibit attached. Proof of Service and service was mailed and received by Respondent. Mail and the

non-delivery or mishandling of mail has been a major issue of concern for the property owners located at

Hidden Hills Subdivision. The United States Postal Service had been previously apprised of the situation

and had been working on correcting the mail and the lack thereof of proper services and delivery. The

actual Remittitur was delivered to our next door neighbor at: 1668 Golf Link, Stone Mountain, Georgia

30088. The neighbor left the Remittitur in the mailbox with writings indicating the following: “delivered

to wrong address”.

The Motion for Reconsideration was filed timely. In such instances where Appellant is filing Pro Se, the

courts have been able to adjust the rules of law to and allow levity where the Appellant has shown honest

intent to file appropriate documents with the court. Please see exhibits “A”, “B”, and “C”.
We humbly pray and ask the court to reconsider recalling the Remittitur based on several fronts.

Respondent did receive notice in a timely manner. Appellant, a lay person of the law, should not be

penalized for being ignorant of appellate procedures. (Peaole v. Davis (1965) 62 Cal.2d 806.) Moreover,

the court must consider Appellants, age, health, and the bewilderment he must have felt in attempting to

provide the court with a proper document. Appellant sincerely believed that he had proceeded properly

and that he had tried unsuccessfully to meet the obligations of the court. Appellant respectfully requests

this court to consider his application in light of the standards announced in People v. Ribero (1971)4C

Cal.3d 55, 65, that the power of Appellate courts to grant relief from default”…is to be liberally construed

to protect the right to appeal.”

March 5, 2010 Respectfully,

Arthur Whitaker