Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Michael and Kelly Goodell divorced in 2006 by a Final Judgment and Decree which incorporated a settlement agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, Michael was required to pay Kelly alimony until she remarried. Michael also voluntarily agreed to make payments for the benefit of Kelly's two children from a previous marriage, after she remarried. Kelly remarried in 2008, and Michael began making payments to her children. Kelly died one year later, and Michael stopped making payments to her children. The administrator of Kelly's estate filed a contempt action against Michael for non-payment, contending that the payments were part of the property division in the divorce, and as such, survived Kelly's death. The trial court agreed with Kelly's estate; Michael thereafter appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the payments were a voluntary contractual obligation to be construed in the same manner and with the same rules of construction as other contractual agreements. The payments remained Michael's responsibility, and accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Goodell v. Oliver" on Justia Law

Defendant Gary Simpson appealed a trial court's denial of his motion in arrest of judgment. Defendant was convicted of and sentenced on three counts each of malice murder, aggravated assault and concealing a death. He filed a number of post-appeal motions with the superior court, and the court entered an order in 2011 that his motion was partially granted, finding that the aggravated assaults merged into the malice murders. The order set forth life sentences for each of the murder counts, and ten-year sentences for each count of concealing a death, all to be served consecutively. In his motion for arrest of judgment, Defendant argued that his indictment suffered from a fatal defect in its "deceptive language" and presented a "non amendable defect void on its face." The trial court denied Defendant's motion as untimely. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant contended that the trial court's sentencing order constituted a new judgment of conviction, and that his motion of arrest of judgment was indeed timely filed. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the trial court. View "Simpson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2007, Appellant Derick Villanueva acted as the closing attorney for a mortgage-refinance transaction in which Homecomings Financial, LLC served as the lender supplying funds to pay off earlier mortgages on the secured property. Appellee First American Title Insurance Company issued title insurance on the transaction. Pursuant to Villanueva’s instructions, Homecomings wired funds into a specified escrow account. However, the funds were not used to pay off the earlier mortgages; instead, the funds were withdrawn and the account closed by a person not a lawyer. First American paid off the earlier mortgages and, pursuant to its closing protection letter to Homecomings, became "subrogated to all rights and remedies [Homecomings] would have had against any person or property…." First American then filed this lawsuit against appellants, the estate of another attorney, the escrow account, the non-lawyer who withdrew the funds from the escrow account, and others, seeking damages for legal malpractice and breach of a contract with Homecomings. The trial court denied summary judgment to appellants. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a legal malpractice claims were not per se unassignable. After studying the issue, the Court agreed with the appellate court that legal malpractice claims are not per se unassignable. View "Villanueva v. First American Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In July 2011, Jing Liu sued Hao Wang alleging that Wang held stock in a Chinese company, that Wang held this stock on behalf of Liu, that Wang had misappropriated the stock for his own use, and that Wang wrongfully withheld distributions and other funds derived from his holding of the stock, to all of which Liu was entitled. A few weeks later, the trial court entered an interlocutory injunction that prohibited Wang from transferring certain assets while the lawsuit was pending, and Wang moved to dismiss the lawsuit pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In early 2012, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss the lawsuit, stayed the lawsuit pending the resolution of a related lawsuit in China, and ordered the interlocutory injunction be made permanent. Wang appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss and the order making permanent the interlocutory injunction. Upon its review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court concluded that Wang failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to dismiss, but concluded that the trial court erred when it entered a permanent injunction without adequate notice to, or the consent of, the parties. View "Wang v. Liu" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant-Appellant Denzel Laquan Ward appealed his conviction for malice murder, felony murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, contending that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction regarding the credibility of a testifying defendant. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, except for the separate judgment of conviction and sentence for felony murder. The Court concluded that since there was a single victim, Defendant could not be convicted and sentenced for malice and felony murder. View "Ward v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Anthony Terrell Smith appealed his convictions and sentences for malice murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a weapon at a public gathering, which were in connection with the shooting death of Romondez Lashan Lester. Defendant raised numerous issues of error by the trial court on appeal to the Supreme Court. But finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In "Smith v. Georgia," (663 SE2d 155 (2008)), the Supreme Court reversed Appellant Tavaris Smith's murder conviction, finding that the trial court had erred in classifying Appellant's sleepwalking defense as an insanity defense. Following retrial, Appellant was again convicted of malice murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant challenged his second conviction on grounds of insufficiency of the evidence, trial counsel ineffectiveness, evidentiary errors and problems with the jury's instructions. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Smith v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Christopher Slaughter was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Aikeem Hall. He appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit evidence of the victim's prior violent acts and of provocation and that the trial court erred in finding Appellant competent to stand trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment except for Appellant's sentence for aggravated assault for shooting Hall in the leg, which was vacated because the conviction for that offense merged with his murder conviction. View "Slaughter v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Ashley Schutt was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the death of her husband. She appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for aggravated assault, that her conviction for aggravated assault should have merged with her murder conviction, that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court erred in failing to suppress her pretrial statements to the police. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's except for Defendant's sentence for aggravated assault, which was vacated because the Court agreed that the conviction for that offense merged with her murder conviction. View "Schutt v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Charlott Lynett Reaves was convicted of the murder of her stepdaughter after a bench trial. Defendant appealed, contending only that the trial court erred when it denied in part her motion to suppress certain statements that she made to a law enforcement officer. Seeing no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Reaves v. Georgia" on Justia Law