Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Husband and wife were divorced in 2009. They had two children. The decree awarded joint custody to the parties, with primary physical custody to wife. Thereafter, husband filed a contempt action, and also sought a psychological custody evaluation of wife. Wife was living in Forsyth County at that time, and she was served at her residence in that county. Almost four months later, wife filed a “motion to dismiss.” She did not challenge personal jurisdiction or venue in that motion. Thereafter, husband appended a motion for change of custody to the contempt action. However, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the custody and contempt issues, which was announced in open court. The parties abided by the settlement agreement for about eight months. Then wife moved to invalidate the agreement and to dismiss the change of custody action, arguing it should have been filed in Fulton County because she moved there at some point while the case was pending. The trial court denied wife’s motions, finding that she waived personal jurisdiction and venue defenses. It also awarded husband physical custody of the children, denied wife visitation rights with the children until she underwent and paid for a psychological custody evaluation, and ordered wife to pay child support in the amount of $704 per month. Finally, the trial court found wife in contempt for failing to pay child support in the amount of $3,168 and uncovered medical expenses for the minor children in the amount of $331. Wife appealed, but finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Andersen v. Farrington" on Justia Law

This divorce action involved the termination of the parental rights of the husband, who was the child's legal father for 13 years. The husband was appealing the superior court's order severing his rights as legal father and granting the biological father's petition to legitimate. Gwendolyn and William Brine were married in August 1997, just weeks after a relationship between Gwendolyn and Brian Shipp ended. The child was born in May 1998, and Brine was listed on the birth certificate as the father. Approximately 18 months later, Shipp saw Gwendolyn and asked whether he could be the father. She said that she was married and the child was not his. For the next ten years, Shipp made no more inquiries and took no further action concerning the child's paternity. He saw the child occasionally as a family friend, but did not attempt to develop a father-son relationship or provide any substantial financial or emotional support. In August 2010, a year after William filed for divorce, Gwendolyn informed Shipp that she thought he was the child's biological father; subsequent DNA testing confirmed that fact. In February 2011, Shipp moved to intervene in the divorce action and filed a petition for legitimation. Following a hearing, the superior court found that Shipp had not waived or abandoned his opportunity interest in developing a relationship with the child and that it was in the child's best interest to grant the legitimation petition. As part of the divorce decree, the superior court terminated William Brine's rights as the legal father, granted Shipp's petition to legitimate, and awarded Shipp primary physical custody of the child. William Brine filed an application for discretionary appeal, which the Supreme Court granted as having possible merit. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to terminate the legal father's parental rights, the Court reversed that decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Brine v. Shipp" on Justia Law

Wife appealed from the trial court's finding that husband's alimony obligation was for permanent periodic alimony. The court held that the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding that husband's alimony obligation was for permanent alimony that terminated upon the wife's remarriage. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's erroneous ruling with respect to husband's alimony obligation and remanded the case to the trial court for a proper consideration of wife's motion for contempt. View "Hardigree v. Smith" on Justia Law

The court granted wife's application for discretionary appeal from the final judgment and decree of divorce. At issue was the equitable division of a closely-held non-profit corporation. The court concluded that the superior court functioned as the finder of fact, and as such, it was authorized to give credit and weight to the disputed evidence in favor of husband. The court also concluded that wife's complaints that the superior court erred in failing to consider her request for attorney fees and to award them to her because husband refused to comply with discovery and/or there was substantial disparity in the parties' financial circumstances was unavailing. View "Jones-Shaw v. Shaw" on Justia Law

Husband and wife were divorced pursuant to a final judgment and decree entered after wife failed to appear for a scheduled final hearing to determine child custody. After the trial court denied wife's motions to set aside, for new trial, and for reconsideration, she filed an application for discretionary appeal. The court held that the trial court was authorized to strike wife's pleadings; wife's failure to appear was not excused; the record did not support wife's claim of wilful participation in the proceedings; the court need not address wife's contentions that she was denied her right to a jury trial or to present and object to the introduction of evidence because the trial court was authorized to strike her pleadings; wife was provided a full hearing on the issue of child custody which she chose not to attend and she failed to set forth a valid due process claim; and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making its property award. View "Pennington v. Pennington" on Justia Law

Appellee, as executrix of the estate of her father, and her sister, brought a breach of contract action in which they asserted that their father's second wife, appellant, contractually waived her right to retain the proceeds of their deceased father's employer-provided 401K plan and life insurance policy by entering a settlement agreement incorporated into an order of separate maintenance executed approximately a year prior to the father's death. At issue was whether the court of appeals erred in finding that decedent's children could maintain a state law action against the decedent's surviving spouse to recover proceeds distributed to the spouse as the beneficiary of the decedent's ERISA-governed benefits plans, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., where the state law claims were based on a contention that the spouse waived her rights to such proceeds. The court answered in the negative, concluding that, in this case, since the proceeds of the ERISA-covered plans were paid out to appellant and were no longer in the control of the plan administrator, the trial court erred when it dismissed appellees' breach of contract claim against appellant. View "Appleton v. Alcorn, et al." on Justia Law

Husband filed a motion for contempt against his former wife, for closing a business checking account in violation of the parties' 2008 divorce decree. The trial court found wife in criminal and civil contempt for interfering with the operation of the business that had been awarded to husband as part of the divorce. The court granted wife's application for discretionary appeal to address whether the trial court abused its discretion in holding her in contempt. Because wife did not violate the terms of the decree or the agreements between the parties, the court reversed the judgment. View "Scherer v. Testino" on Justia Law

The court granted the application for discretionary appeal of husband from the trial court's order on a petition for contempt in a divorce case. The court held that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's finding that husband was in contempt of his obligation to refinance the couple's house. The court held, however, that the trial court's contempt order set forth an unequal division of the marital residence and this was an improper modification of the property division set forth in the settlement agreement. Further, the trial court's directive that husband sell or liquidate assets to pay down the mortgage was a modification of the settlement agreement and divorce decree. View "Jett v. Jett" on Justia Law

In 2008, mother filed a petition for modification of custody and child support. After denying father's motion to dismiss for lack of venue, the trial court granted temporary physical custody of the child to mother in 2008 and permanent physical custody and child support in 2011. The court held that since there was evidence that supported the trial court's determination that father did not change his county of residence and was a resident of Cherokee County when mother filed her modification, the trial court did not misapply the law. Since there was evidence to support the trial court's award of custody of the child to one fit parent over the other fit parent, the court could not say that the trial court abused its discretion. Finally, to the extent that Harris v. Williams held that OCGA 19-9-3(g) did not authorize an award of attorney fees in an action seeking modification of child custody, it was overruled. Since mother's petition for modification of child custody did not fall within the parameters of OCGA 19-6-2(a) and fell within OCGA 19-9-3(g), the trial court's grant of attorney fees was pursuant to OCGA 19-9-3(g) and the court need not remand the case to the trial court for clarification of the statutory basis of its award. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Viskup v. Viskup" on Justia Law

Wife and husband were married in 1998 and wife filed a complaint for divorce in 2008. The parties resolved all issues by agreement except the disposition of certain real property which was purchased by wife prior to the marriage. In 2005, wife transferred the property into a family trust for the benefit of her three children. Considering the lack of any evidence of the value of the maintenance work performed by husband, the testimony of wife that he was paid for this work, the fact that husband used a portion of the property rent-free as a commercial recording studio, and the fact that the property paid for the mortgage through its own rents, the trial court had evidentiary support for its finding that any increased value in the property attributable to husband's contributions and the expenditure of marital funds was nominal. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion to divide the marital property equitably. View "Pina v. Pina" on Justia Law