Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Wife and husband were married in 1997 and wife filed a petition for divorce in 2010. At issue was whether the marital residence was subject to equitable division. The trial court found that the marital residence was wife's separate property and awarded her sole possession. Husband applied for discretionary appeal and the court granted the application pursuant to the Court's Rule 34(4). The court, however, rejected husband's contention that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to enter a consolidated pretrial order in violation of OCGA 9-11-16 and a scheduling order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Graham v. Graham" on Justia Law

The court granted wife's application for interlocutory appeal to determine whether the trial court erred by denying her motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Finding that the wife did not have sufficient "minimum contacts" within the State of Georgia, the court held that the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over the wife. The trial court did, however, have jurisdiction over the res of the marriage under OCGA 19-5-2. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Ennis v. Ennis" on Justia Law

Wife contended that the trial court erred in upholding in a final decree of divorce the jury's allegedly erroneous finding than an IRA in husband's name was husband's separate property that was not subject to equitable division. As a preliminary matter, the court held that wife did not waive any alleged error when her counsel stated affirmatively that wife had no objections to the "form" of the verdict returned by the jury. The court held, however, that because at least some evidence supported the jury's determination that husband's IRA was his separate property, the court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Curran v. Scharpf" on Justia Law

Wife and husband divorced and in the final order, the trial court awarded primary custody of the parties' children to husband and ordered wife to pay child support. The court granted wife's application to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 34(4). The court held that, in light of the guardian ad litem actually testifying at the final hearing and the fact that wife could not show that the trial court inappropriately relied on the guardian's report in any way, the court found any alleged error in the trial court's failure to admit the report into evidence was harmless. The court found no merit to wife's claim that the trial court had no other choice but to order husband to pay temporary child support in the manner she desired, rather than in the manner that it ordered. Further, the record belied wife's assertion that the trial court did not consider the parties' incomes when it made its final child support award. Finally, the court rejected wife's assertion that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings to support its custody and visitation findings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Gresham-Green v. Mainones" on Justia Law

In divorce proceedings, wife added husband's company, SJV, as a party to the proceedings. SJV filed an application to appeal, which the court granted pursuant to the now-expired Pilot Project, by which the court granted all non-frivolous applications for discretionary review from a final judgment and decree of divorce. The court held that there was evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that, after wife filed for divorce, husband violated the Standing Order by transferring the Cobb County property from Seiz Joint Venture #1 to SJV. Based on this transfer of property that was properly the subject of the divorce proceedings, the trial court was authorized to add SJV as a party in order to ensure that wife might be afforded complete relief in the case. The court also held that SJV was not required to make wife a voting member of the company in order to facilitate her receipt of company distributions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Seiz Joint Venture, LLC v. Seiz" on Justia Law

In an action for divorce and child support, the court granted this application for discretionary appeal under Supreme Court Rule 34(4). The court held that the final support order issued by the trial court included a specific deviation for extraordinary educational expenses, but the court failed to make the statutorily required written findings necessary to support the deviation. Therefore, the court must reverse the judgment in part and remand the case for a redetermination of the final child support order, with any extraordinary educational expenses deviation to be based on proper written findings. Finally, the court held that Husband's remaining challenges lacked merit and affirmed the the remainder of the trial court's judgment. View "Brogdon v. Brogdon" on Justia Law

This appeal involved a title to a house and lot in a residential subdivision in Forsyth County. The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and defendants appealed. The court held that the trial court properly rejected defendants' claim of bona fide purchaser status; defendants' argument that the trial court erred in holding that the children acquired a collective two-thirds interest in the property by virtue of the 1998 quitclaim deed from their father was without merit; the trial court properly dismissed defendants' claim for equitable subrogation; the trial court did not err in dismissing defendants' counterclaim for unjust enrichment; and the trial court did not err in dismissing defendants' laches defense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. et al. v. Shelton et al." on Justia Law

Wife appealed the trial court's order setting aside its final order based solely on the mistake of Husband's attorney pursuant to OCGA 9-11-60(d)(2). As an initial matter, the court held that this case did present a child custody matter subject to OCGA 5-6-34(a)(11). Thus, the grant of a motion to set aside a child custody case was directly appealable. Further, an action seeking to change visitation qualified for treatment as a "child custody case." Therefore, this case, which included a ruling eliminating Husband's visitation, was a "custody case" subject to appeal. The court also held that the trial court's ruling on Husband's motion to set aside was erroneous under OCGA 9-11-60(d)(2) where Husband did not provide the trial court with an appropriate basis to set aside its final order pursuant to the statutory provision. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed. View "Edge v. Edge" on Justia Law

Wife appealed the Final Order in her divorce action against Husband on the grounds that the trial court improperly calculated Husband's self-employment income and refused to consider the minor child's cheerleading expenses as a special expense for purposes of deviating from the statutory support guidelines. The court held that the trial court's findings were within its discretion and affirmed the Final Order. View "Ellis v. Ellis" on Justia Law

In this divorce case, wife asserted, inter alia, that the trial court erred in calculating wife's interest in husband's pension and in ordering husband to pay wife alimony in the amount of $1,250 per month once husband's pension matured. The court held that it was at wife's urging that the trial court chose to evaluate and "distribute" the pension in this case as alimony. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in choosing to award wife a specific dollar amount, rather than a percentage of the pension benefit, as alimony. Based on considerations of, inter alia, the value of the pension, the overwhelming marital debt, husband's contribution of inherited assets to the marriage, and wife's recent promotion, as well as based on the wide latitude given to the trial court in fixing the amount of alimony, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting alimony at $1,250 per month. The court also held that there was no abuse of discretion in the division of the marital assets; no reversible error in ruling that wife should have the sole right to claim one-half of the mortgage interest; no abuse of discretion in requiring wife to indemnify husband and hold him harmless for debts the trial court ordered her to pay; and no abuse of discretion in awarding wife attorney fees.