refused” to participate in the takedown costs at the beginning of the trial and in a pretrial pleading and acknowledging that “silence is not an express refusal,” but not mentioning any ruling by the trial court at the commencement of the trial that appellant had expressly refused to participate); Tow, 180 Ga. App. at 610 (denying appellant’s request to compel appellee to authorize the court reporter to prepare a transcript, based on testimony at a post-trial hearing that appellant declined in open court to participate in the takedown costs, without addressing whether the trial court ruled at the commencement of trial that appellant had expressly refused to participate in the takedown costs). See Moore v. Center Court Sports & Fitness, 289 Ga. App. 596, 600, n. 6 (657 SE2d 548) (2008)
recognizing that tow and ruffin appear to have applied the harrington rule without considering giddingss requirement that there be a ruling by the trial court at the commencement of the proceedings that the losing party expressly refused to participate in the takedown costs holding that a party failed to preserve error by not pursuing a ruling at trial where the courts motion in limine ruling invited the party to attempt to admit the evidence during trial holding that the exception to the general rule applied even though the court did not specifically rule the evidence was inadmissible because the ruling was definitive and reached the ultimate issue of admissibility holding that upon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence the trial court shall state its essential findings holding that an exception to the general rule applied when counsel asked the court whether its ruling was the final order of the court and the court responded yes