MILLER, P. J., ANDREWS, J., and SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE
Beasley, Senior Appellate Judge.
Financial Services, LLC appeals from an order of the State
Court of Fulton County domesticating, but staying enforcement
of, an Illinois judgment against Lavonne Norrils because the
trial court concluded the Illinois judgment is time-barred
under Georgia law. If the trial court erred in
"misread[ing] the date of rendition of the [Illinois]
judgment, " such factual error was induced by Gateway.
Moreover, Gateway raises this issue for the first time on
appeal, rather than in the trial court, where it had to be
first preserved. Therefore, we affirm.
record reveals that Gateway obtained a judgment for $11,
589.02 against Norrils in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. In filing its notice of enforcement of a foreign
judgment, Gateway included a photocopy of the Illinois
judgment and in its complaint twice alleged that the date of
the judgment was September 11, 2000. In addition, a proposed
order domesticating the Illinois judgment identified the date
of the original judgment as September 11, 2000. Norrils did
not respond. In its order domesticating the foreign judgment,
the trial court found that "[t]he judgment here at issue
was rendered and filed in Illinois on September 11,
2000." As a result, the trial court concluded
that the judgment was "time-barred under the law of this
State and unenforceable." See OCGA §§ 9-12-60,
9-12-61. Accordingly, the trial court ordered "that the
final judgment against Norrils shall be given full force and
effect as if entered in this State. However, any and all
enforcement of the judgment in this State is hereby
STAYED." (Emphasis in original.) The
court further noted that the matter was "concluded"
and the clerk was directed to "close this case."
This appeal followed.
sole enumeration of error, Gateway asserts that the trial
court erred in staying enforcement of the foreign judgment
sua sponte "and holding the judgment to be
Gateway contends that the trial court erred by entering its
order sua sponte, but fails to support this contention with
citation of authority or argument in its brief to this Court.
We therefore deem it abandoned and will not consider it. See
Jenkins v. Buice, 231 Ga.App. 843, 845 (1) (499
S.E.2d 734) (1998); Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2).
Gateway argues on appeal that the foreign judgment is not
dormant because it was entered in 2008, not 2000 as it
represented to the trial court. While it is correct that a
2008 judgment would not be dormant,  this Court will not correct
an error induced by an appellant's own conduct.
notice of enforcement filed by Gateway in the trial court
stated that the date of the Illinois judgment was September
11, 2000. A proposed order domesticating the judgment
likewise identified the date of the original judgment as
September 11, 2000. Norrils did not respond to Gateway's
filing, and the trial court found that the Illinois judgment
was entered on September 11, 2000. Now, in this Court,
Gateway contends for the first time on appeal that the
"record reflects that [Gateway] filed a judgment entered
in Illinois dated September 11, 2008" and that
"[t]he Trial Court misread the date of rendition of the
judgment as being 2000 rather than 2008." However, other
than the date at the top of the form, noted in footnote 2,
there is no evidence to support Gateway's current
argument that the Illinois judgment was originally entered in
2008. As to illegible documents, see Swanstrom v. Wells
Fargo Bank, 325 Ga.App. 743, 744 (2) (754 S.E.2d 786)
(2014) (illegible copy of contract "not entitled to
evidentiary consideration") (citation and punctuation
result, any alleged error by the trial court concerning the
date the Illinois judgment was rendered was due to
Gateway's own statements. "A party will not be heard
to complain of error induced by his own conduct, nor to
complain of errors expressly invited by him." (Citation
and punctuation omitted.) Williamson v. Strickland &
Smith, Inc., 296 Ga.App. 1, 4 (1) (673 S.E.2d 858)
(2009). See also Carnett's, Inc. v. Hammond, 279
Ga. 125, 130 (6) (610 S.E.2d 529) (2005) ("A party
cannot complain of [an] order . . . that his own conduct
produced or aided in causing.") (citation, punctuation
and footnote omitted). Nor did Gateway present any additional
evidence following the trial court's order to demonstrate
that the Illinois judgment was entered on a different date.
Accordingly, Gateway has failed to show error in the record.
See generally Kecskes v. City of Mt. Zion, 300
Ga.App. 348, 350 (1) (a) (685 S.E.2d 329) (2009) ("It is
the duty of the party asserting error to show it by the
record; mere assertions of error in briefs cannot satisfy
this duty.") (Citation and punctuation omitted).
Miller, P.J., and Andrews, J., concur.
 Although notice was sent as required
by OCGA § 9-12-133, Norrils did not respond to
Gateway's filing in the trial court or file an