Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2005, Robert Hanna and Kelli Ford were divorced in Gwinnett County. Hanna later moved to DeKalb County, and in 2011, Ford filed a petition in DeKalb County to modify their divorce decree with respect to child support and visitation. At the same time, Ford also filed a motion in DeKalb County for contempt, alleging that Hanna had failed to pay child support due under the decree. Hanna moved to dismiss the motion for contempt for want of jurisdiction, and the DeKalb County court granted his motion, citing the general rule that contempt of a decree ordinarily can be punished only by the court that rendered the decree. The DeKalb County court distinguished "Buckholts," reasoning that Buckholts was limited to counterclaims for contempt. Ford appealed, contending that the DeKalb County court had jurisdiction to entertain her motion for contempt. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed, and reversed the dismissal of the motion for contempt. View "Ford v. Hanna" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court granted an application for certiorari from the Court of Appeals' decision in "In re: W.L.H.," (723 SE2d 478 (2012)) to determine whether a child in a deprivation action had standing to appeal when the child was represented by counsel and the child's guardian ad litem chose not to appeal. "Because the guardian ad litem is the legal protector of a child's best interests in deprivation proceedings, we find that a child lacks standing to appeal a deprivation ruling except through a guardian ad litem." View "In the Interest of W.L.H." on Justia Law

Thomas Vines appealed a trial court's order that denied his motion to modify the terms of his visitation rights with his daughter and that granted Anita Vines' counterclaim for contempt and request for attorney fees. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vines v. Vines" on Justia Law

Russell James Wright and Debra Sue Hall were married in 1997 and divorced in 2000 under a divorce decree that required Wright to pay monthly alimony. In 2012 Wright filed a motion to set aside their divorce decree on the ground that Hall had committed fraud in marrying him when she was not divorced from her first husband. The trial court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court granted Wright's application for discretionary appeal to consider whether the trial court erred. Because Georgia law does not confer validity on an otherwise void marriage for the purpose of requiring the payment of alimony unrelated to the protection of children, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision. View "Wright v. Hall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted appellant Andrew Bishop's application for discretionary review of the final judgment and decree of divorce that awarded sole legal and physical custody of his two-year-old daughter to appellee Erika Baumgartner ("Mother") and gave no visitation to Bishop ("Father"). The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying visitation to Father. Since evidence in the record supports the trial court's exercise of its discretion, the Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying visitation rights to Father. View "Bishop v. Baumgartner" on Justia Law

In early 2012, the trial court entered a final judgment in the divorce action filed by appellee Jeffrey Rymuza (Husband) against appellant Andreana Rymuza (Wife). Husband filed for divorce in Houston County. The complaint sought a divorce on the grounds of Wife's cruel treatment and that the marriage was irretrievably broken, and requested equitable division of the parties' assets and liabilities, the return of certain property, attorney fees, and a restraining order preventing Wife from disposing of assets or entering the marital residence. Nine days after the final hearing but before a written order was entered, Wife's attorney filed on Wife's behalf an answer and counterclaim and a premature motion to set aside the order. In the answer and counterclaim, Wife disputed that venue was proper in Houston County, sought a divorce on the grounds of adultery and cruel treatment and asked to be awarded, among other things, the marital residence in Houston County and "all monetary assets held by" Husband. In the motion to set aside, Wife claimed that the court prevented her at the final hearing from presenting evidence and cross-examining Husband on the merit's of his complaint and that she was not allowed to address the appropriateness of the notice by publication or the veracity of Husband's allegations in support thereof. Finding that Wife failed to carry her burden to show the errors alleged, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment and final decree. View "Rymuza v. Rymuza" on Justia Law

Robert Hamilton (husband) and Janell Hamilton (wife) were divorced in 2008, after approximately 23 years of marriage. At the time of their divorce, they had one minor child. The final divorce decree ordered husband to pay, in addition to other alimony to wife, the sum of $6,000 per month until 2013, provided that the child was enrolled in a full time student at an accredited higher education institution. If the child was not enrolled in good standing, then on the first month following the child not being enrolled, husband would pay $4,000.00 until 2013. The decree further required wife to immediately inform husband of any change in the child's enrollment status which could trigger a change in husband's alimony obligation. In the event wife knowingly failed to inform husband of a change in status and husband overpaid, the overpayment was fully reimbursable plus a ten percent interest penalty. The child attended Georgia Southern University beginning in Fall 2009, but in his first three semesters, struggled academically. the child switched schools and for the spring semester, achieved a 4.0 grade point average. Husband paid $6,000 per month in alimony to wife through January 2011. In February 2011, after learning of the change in schools, husband reduced his alimony payments to $4,000 per month and simultaneously filed a petition to hold wife in contempt of the final decree arguing she failed to notify him that the child had lost "good standing" at Georgia Southern University. The trial court concluded wife was not in contempt of the final decree; but construing the decree, the trial court determined husband's alimony obligation for the 13-month period from January 2010 through May 2011 was $4,000 per month, resulting in a $26,000 overpayment to wife. The trial court further concluded, however, that the child regained his status as a full-time student in good standing in June 2011, thereby reinstating husband's $6,000 per month alimony obligation for June through October 2011. Because husband paid only $4,000 per month in those five months, the court held husband owed wife a deficiency of $10,000. Deducting the amount husband owed wife from the amount he was owed for his overpayment, the trial court relieved husband from paying alimony to wife until the $16,000 balance was paid. Husband's request for attorney fees and his request for an interest penalty on the overpayment were denied, and he appealed. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Hamilton v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a superior court was able to exercise jurisdiction to award permanent custody of a child when a juvenile court previously found the child to be deprived and placed the child in the custody of a "willing and qualified" relative until the child turned eighteen years old. The appellate court answered the question in the negative; the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. "The case before us is not one in which the principle of priority jurisdiction can be invoked because only one court, the superior court, has jurisdiction to award permanent custody of a child. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals." View "Ertter v. Dunbar" on Justia Law

John Allan Hendry and Sally Frances Hendry were married in 1998, and after three children were born during their marriage, they divorced. In its final judgment and decree of divorce, the trial court awarded primary physical custody of the children to Sally, and it ordered John to pay $2,400 to Sally each month as child support. John appealed, contending that the court erred in several respects in its determination of his child support obligations. While the Supreme Court agreed with John that the trial court erred when it calculated his gross income to include amounts that his employer pays him to reimburse the costs of his family health insurance premiums, it found no merit in his other claims of error. Accordingly, the Court affirmed in part, reverse in part, and remanded for the trial court to recalculate his gross income and to consider again the amount of his child support obligation. View "Hendry v. Hendry" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Todd Jarvis (“Husband”) and appellee Tracy Dorminy Jarvis(“Wife”) were married in March 1997. Husband filed for divorce in 2009. After a five-day bench trial in March 2011, the trial court granted the parties a divorce by final judgment. The trial court gave Wife primary physical custody of the couple’s three children and required Husband to pay child support. In addition to child support, the trial court ordered Husband to pay alimony for thirty-six months or until Wife’s remarriage or death, or until Husband’s death, whichever occurred first. The trial court reserved the matter of attorney’s fees for later disposition upon motion made by the parties. Wife subsequently moved for an award of attorney’s fees, the trial court held a hearing, and the trial court later awarded Wife attorney's fees. On appeal, Husband contended that the trial court abused its discretion when it considered evidence that Husband received financial support from his mother when considering the financial circumstances of the parties for the purpose of awarding attorney’s fees.1 Husband also contended that the trial court erred when it ordered that his estate continue to pay his support obligations temporarily in the event there is any delay in the disbursement of proceeds from his life insurance policy. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jarvis v. Jarvis" on Justia Law