Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Appellant Richard Odom (husband) and appellee Sherri Odom (wife) were divorced in 2007. The decree, which incorporated the parties’ settlement agreement, awarded wife primary custody of the parties’ three minor children and ordered husband to pay child support. The decree also required husband to pay private school tuition for the 2008-2009 academic year and provided that he “shall not be responsible for any expense for private school other than set out in [the parties’ settlement agreement].” In 2008, husband filed a petition to modify visitation and to hold wife in contempt of the final decree. Wife answered and filed a counterclaim for modification of child support. Following a hearing attended by both parties and their counsel, the trial court entered an order denying husband’s motions and granting wife’s motion for an upward modification of child support. The court determined there had been a substantial change in husband’s income and financial status sufficient to warrant an increase in child support, and after conducting the calculations required for determining child support under the child support guidelines, ordered an increase in husband’s monthly child support to cover the expenses of private school for the children. The trial court deviated from the presumptive child support award based on its conclusion that the “presumptive award would be unjust and/or inappropriate because the educational needs of the children of the parties could not be met with an award of the presumptive amount.” Husband appealed that portion of the trial court’s order granting wife’s motion for modification of child support. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no abuse of the trial court's discretion and affirmed the judgment. View "Odom v. Odom" on Justia Law

Appellant Jill E. Eldridge (Wife) filed for divorce from appellee Joshua R. C. Eldridge (Husband) after more than seven years of marriage. Following a bench trial, the trial court issued a final judgment and decree of divorce in which it granted joint legal custody of the couple's two children to both parents and primary physical custody to Wife; ordered Husband to pay $1379 per month in child support; assigned to Wife responsibility for her student loans; and adopted its own parenting plan. The Supreme Court granted Wife's application for discretionary review and concluded that the trial court erred: (1) in its determination of child support by failing to make mandatory written findings in granting a deviation and in applying an incorrect conversion factor in calculating Wife's monthly child care costs and (2) in adopting a parenting plan that failed to specify when Husband's weekend visitation begins and ends. Accordingly, the Court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with direction. View "Eldridge v. Eldridge" on Justia Law

The trial court held Randy Horn (Husband) in contempt for violating his divorce decree with Brandie Shepherd (Wife) and ordered him incarcerated until he purged himself of the contempt. Husband appealed, and the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in requiring him to pay attorney fees associated with the contempt proceeding in order to purge the contempt; the Court therefore reversed that small portion of the trial court's judgment. Husband's "many other enumerations of error" were without merit, and the Court affirmed the remainder of the judgment. View "Horn v. Shepherd" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Husband's application for discretionary appeal to consider whether the trial court erred in determining his child support obligation when he petitioned to modify it. Upon review, the Court concluded that the trial court indeed erred in its ruling. Husband raised two other issues, but the Court found no merit to them. Accordingly, the Court partly affirmed the trial court, partly reversed, and remanded the case for recalculation of the support obligation. View "Wetherington v. Wetherington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted discretionary appeal of the parties' final judgment and divorce decree. After review, the Court affirmed most of the trial court's judgment. The Court found that the divorce decree included a deviation from the statutory child support guidelines without the written findings that are statutorily required to support the deviation. Therefore, the Court reversed that part of the judgment and remanded the case for a redetermination of child support. View "Walls v. Walls" on Justia Law

Appellant James Newman (husband) and appellee Judy Newman (wife) were married in May 2007. Just before their wedding, they executed a 20-page type-written prenuptial agreement to which they added a handwritten provision acknowledging "that there [were] certain ambiguities contained [within] the body of this document which each party agrees to clarify and re-write within 30 days of the date of execution hereof." Wife filed for divorce in 2011. After a hearing, the trial court granted wife's motion to enforce the prenuptial agreement and entered a judgment of divorce incorporating its terms. The Supreme Court granted husband's application for discretionary appeal and affirmed the trial court's judgment: "[i]n essence, husband argue[d] that any agreement the parties may have had was voided by the addition of the language indicating their belief that the agreement contained ambiguities and their intent to clarify such ambiguities. Because the language of the prenuptial agreement demonstrate[d] the parties reached a complete agreement regarding the disposition of property in the event their marriage ended in divorce, we conclude the trial court did not err by granting wife's motion to enforce the agreement and incorporating the agreement into the final divorce decree." View "Newman v. Newman" on Justia Law

Appellant Frederick C. Hastings (Husband) appealed a final divorce decree which awarded primary physical custody of his two children to Nichole Hastings (Wife). Husband is the biological father of both children, whereas wife is the adoptive mother of one child and the biological mother of the other. At the time the couple married in August 2006, wife was aware husband's former girlfriend was pregnant. Following the child's birth in October 2006, husband's paternity was established and the couple obtained custody with wife eventually adopting the child. In February 2009, wife gave birth to the couple's second child. Husband filed for divorce in February 2011. Following mediation which resolved most issues between the parties, the trial court held a hearing with respect to the issues of custody and child support. Both parties testified and, after considering the evidence, the trial court found it was in the best interest of the children for wife to be awarded primary physical custody. The court declined to split physical custody of the children between the parents, finding that to do so would cause emotional harm. After awarding joint legal custody, the court awarded child support to wife within the statutory guidelines. Applying the requirements of OCGA 19-7-1 (b.1) to the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it was in the best interest of the children to remain with wife, or that splitting the siblings would cause emotional harm and was not in their best interests. View "Hastings v. Hastings" on Justia Law

Kurt A. Floyd, Sr. and Livia M. Floyd were divorced in 2008. The decree incorporated the settlement of the parties, in which Kurt and Livia agreed that Kurt would retain title to, and possession of, the marital residence. The decree and incorporated settlement required Kurt to refinance the existing mortgage on the marital residence and to use the proceeds to pay Livia for her share of the equity. If Kurt were unwilling or unable to refinance the marital residence, the decree and incorporated settlement required him, within 90 days of the entry of the decree, to list the marital residence for sale at its fair market value or a price mutually agreeable to the parties. On cross-motions for contempt, the court below found that Kurt violated the terms of the decree in several respects, including by failing to refinance or list the marital residence, and it held Kurt in contempt of the decree. The court directed Kurt to purge his contempt with respect to the marital residence by making a quitclaim deed for the residence in favor of Livia. Kurt appealed the contempt order, as well as the denial of his cross-motion for contempt. Upon review of the decree and incorporated settlement, in addition to the trial court record, the Supreme Court reversed the contempt order to the extent that it required Kurt to execute a quitclaim deed in favor of Livia, but it otherwise was affirmed. View "Floyd v. Floyd" on Justia Law

In this divorce case, the husband disputed the validity and enforceability of the parties' self-styled "Premarital Agreement." In 2000, appellant Joanne Fox ("Wife") and appellee Lyle M. Fox ("Husband") divorced after 25 years of marriage. The divorce decree and incorporated settlement agreement required Husband to pay Wife monthly child support of $500, as well as monthly alimony of $1,500 for one year, $2,000 for the next three years, and $1,500 thereafter until Wife was 59 years old. When the parties remarried, the Husband's child support and alimony obligations were extinguished. In February 2010, Wife again filed for divorce, and sought to enforce the Premarital Agreement as a legally binding prenuptial agreement from her first marriage, citing a provision in the agreement that she claimed entitling her to continued support payments. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order ruling, among other things, that the Premarital Agreement, reviewed as a whole, was a "made in contemplation of marriage" but did not fit the statutory definition of a prenuptial agreement, and that it therefore was void because it was not attested by at least two witnesses as required by OCGA 19-3-63. After the trial court granted a certificate of interlocutory review, the Supreme Court granted Wife's interlocutory appeal. Husband argued, among other things, that the agreement was actually a "marriage contract . . . made in contemplation of marriage," not one that contemplated legal issues and rights of the parties upon divorce. The Court found that the parties' "Premarital Agreement," viewed as a whole, was not a binding prenuptial agreement made in anticipation of divorce, and the trial court therefore correctly denied its enforcement due to noncompliance with the attestation requirement of OCGA 19-3-63. View "Fox v. Fox" on Justia Law