Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Karim Ziyad and Fatima El-Amin were divorced in 2009, and Ziyad was awarded a certain residential property. To hold El-Amin harmless from the indebtedness on that property, Ziyad was ordered to refinance the debt in his own name within six months or to sell the property to pay off the debt. He failed to do either of these things, and so, in 2012, El-Amin filed a motion for contempt. After a hearing, the trial court found Ziyad in contempt, ordered him to put the property up for sale without delay. In addition, the court ordered Ziyad to make payments toward the principal of the debt until the property was sold or the debt was otherwise repaid. Ziyad appealed, contending that the trial court improperly modified the final decree when it ordered him to pay down the principal. The Supreme Court disagreed with his contention, and affirmed the trial court's order. View "Ziyad v. El-Amin" on Justia Law

Appellant Charles Williamson (Father) and appellee Susan Williamson (Mother) were divorced in March 2009. Father filed a petition to modify child custody, visitation, and child support. After a bench trial, the court issued a final order. Using the statutory support guidelines as the basis of its modification, the trial court found that the presumptive amount of child support paid by Father would be $1,359 and by Mother would be $233. The court then said that the "guidelines would be unjust and inappropriate considering the relative ability of each parent to provide support because of the disparate incomes of the parties," and that the best interest of the children would be served by a deviation from the presumptive amount to "allow Mother resources to maintain adequate housing and necessities while the children are in her care." Father filed a motion for reconsideration of the final order, which was denied. Father appealed to the Court of Appeals, which then transferred the application to the Supreme Court. Father argued the trial court misapplied the child support guidelines in arriving at its modification order. The Supreme Court found that Father's argument that the trial court erred in calculating the child support obligation was well-founded, and reversed the child support portion of the final order. The case was remanded for child support to be determined correctly. View "Williamson v. Williamson" on Justia Law

Stacy Rutter surreptitiously installed several video surveillance devices in the marital home. Prior to divorce proceedings, Stacy's husband, Charles, moved to exclude any video recordings derived from the use of the surveillance devices on the ground they were made in violation of OCGA 16-11-62 (2). The trial court denied the motion to exclude, relying upon the "curtilage" exception set forth in the statute, but certified its ruling for immediate review. The Court of Appeals granted husband's application for interlocutory review and affirmed, holding subparagraph (2) (C), set forth in House Bill 1576, survived the subsequent enactment and approval of Senate Bill 316, which did not contain a similar subparagraph. In so doing, the appellate court reasoned that the two pieces of legislation were not repugnant. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals to determine which of the two pieces of legislation survived to become law. The Court concluded that subparagraph (2) (C) did not survive the subsequent amendment to OCGA 16-11-62 and therefore the Court of Appeals' judgment should have been reversed. View "Rutter v. Rutter" on Justia Law

By the terms of the original decree of divorce, James and Julie Taylor were to share joint legal custody of their two children. James was to have primary physical custody of the children, and Julie was to pay a certain amount each month to James as child support. Less than three months after the entry of the original decree, James filed a petition to modify it, alleging that circumstances had changed, and seeking sole legal custody of the children, as well as more child support. The trial court granted the modification, awarded sole legal custody to James, and increased the amount that Julie was to pay James as child support. The trial court also awarded James attorney fees. In Case No. S13A0911, Julie appealed modification of the decree; in Case No. S13A0912, Julie appealed the award of attorney fees. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed both cases. View "Taylor v. Taylor" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, the trial court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce for the parties. The jury found that Husband's gross monthly income was $10,833.00 and found that Wife's gross monthly income was zero. These findings resulted in a presumptive child support amount of $1,663 per month for the parties' two minor children who lived with Wife. Upon calculating the presumptive amount of child support, Wife made an additional argument to the jury, requesting an upward deviation of the presumptive child support amount. The jury deliberated further and made an upward deviation of $337 such that the final child support award was $2,000 per month. Wife moved for a new trial, contending the verdict was unsupported by the evidence because the jury failed to include income from fringe benefits Husband received from his employer in its finding of Husband's gross monthly income. She argued the jury's failure to include income from fringe benefits in its finding of Husband's gross monthly income resulted in an erroneous calculation of the presumptive child support amount. After a hearing, the trial court denied Wife's motion for new trial and the Supreme Court granted Wife's application for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 34 (4). Upon careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Wife's motion for new trial. View "Breedlove v. Breedlove" on Justia Law

Wife filed for divorce in February 2010, and following a bench trial, the parties were divorced pursuant to a 2011 Final Order. The trial court reserved the issue of attorney fees at that time, but eventually denied Wife's motion for attorney fees in early 2012. The Supreme Court granted Husband's application to appeal with regard to the trial court's calculation of the parties' respective incomes for the purpose of determining alimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court's Final Order and remanded this case with direction that the trial court include in its Final Order a finding regarding each of the parties' respective gross monthly incomes. View "Demmons v. Wilson-Demmons" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted discretionary review in this case between Appellant and Georgia resident JoBeth Parker, and her then-husband, Appellee nonresident James Timothy Parker. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a final order of custody and child support. Appellant raised several issues relating to the child support award. Prior to the entry of the final order, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration to which she attached proposed alternative worksheets for each child. Although the motion was denied, its filing showed that the parties did not agree to the deviations set forth in the final order. The Georgia Court concluded that the trial court's finding that the parties did agree was therefore made in error. Upon remand, the trial court was required to enter a new final order revised based upon newly prepared child support worksheets. View "Parker v. Parker" on Justia Law

DHS, on behalf of the minor child of Johnny Wright (father), filed a complaint against him, asking the superior court to order Father to pay child support and maintain accident and health insurance, and enforce the order through an income deduction order. During a hearing on the complaint, the trial court learned that Father was currently married to Monica Wright, the mother of the child, and that no divorce or separate maintenance action had been filed. The court concluded that without an order, neither parent is the "custodial parent," and concluded that DHS therefore had no authority to pursue an award of child support. The Supreme Court, after its review, reversed, finding that DHS could seek a child support award against one parent without a divorce action. View "Georgia Dept. of Human Services v. Wright" on Justia Law

Benjamin and Molly Riddell were divorced in 2007. In 2009, Benjamin was granted a modification of his child support obligation. He became delinquent in his support payments. Molly moved to have Benjamin held in contempt of the child support order; Benjamin responded by moving the court to reconsider his support obligation. In 2012, the trial court held Benjamin in contempt and denied his motion for re-modification. On appeal, Benjamin argued that the trial court's denial of his motion for a second modification of his support obligation was in error. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to take into consideration the change in Benjamin's income since the first support modification. Accordingly, the trial court's decision was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Riddell v. Riddell" on Justia Law

Marlene and Michael Zekser divorced in 2011. Marlene appealed the final divorce decree, arguing that the division of the marital assets and debts was inequitable. Finding no error in the division, the Supreme Court affirmed the final decree. View "Zekser v. Zekser" on Justia Law