With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". our holding in Case No. A11A0335, the appeal in Case No. A11A0237 is premature and must be dismissed. If on remand of Case No. A11A0335 the trial court determines that the appeal should be allowed, Grant shall have 30 days to appeal the issues raised in Case No. A11A0237. Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction in Case No. A11A0335. Appeal dismissed in Case No. A11A0237. Ellington, C. J., Smith, P. J., Barnes, P. J., Miller, P. J., Phipps, P. J., Andrews, Mikell, Adams, Doyle, Blackwell, and McFadden, JJ., concur. 1 The appellate record does not conclusively establish that Grant ever paid the bill of costs, but for purposes of this appeal, such a determination is not necessary. 2 In this same order, the trial court gave Grant until September 3, 2010, to respond t 209) (2000) (<HOLDING>); Kendall v. Burke, 237 Ga. App. 742, 742 (516

A: holding that a party failed to present any evidence to rebut inference that delay was unreasonable and inexcusable
B: holding that a partys explanation that the delay in paying costs was caused by a desire to avoid seeking public assistance in payment did not rebut inference
C: holding that evidence that a partys delay in paying costs was caused by a miscommunication was not sufficient to rebut inference
D: holding that the trial court made sufficient findings of fact to support its dismissal of an appeal when the order set forth the circumstances surrounding the appealing partys 16month delay in paying court costs and the appellee had moved to dismiss the appeal based on an inexcusable delay caused by the appellants failure to pay costs
B.