Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Irving Folston was found guilty of malice murder, felony murder and other offenses in connection with the shooting death of Anthony President. On appeal, Folston contended (among other things) that the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient to support the verdict, the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence, and that his trial counsel was ineffective. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Folston v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellants Maurice Flournoy and Michael Williams were tried jointly and each was convicted of felony murder and related crimes stemming from an armed robbery during a drug buy. Both filed a motion for new trial, which was denied. Finding that the trial court did not err in denying appellants' motions, the Supreme Court affirmed their convictions. View "Flournoy v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Gwinnett County appealed an interlocutory injunction against the County and in favor of Gerard and Jewell McManus. The injunction prohibited the County from using "artificial means" to increase the water and sediment that runs off a parcel of real property owned by the County and onto an adjacent parcel owned by the McManuses. The County contended that the trial court abused its discretion when it entered the injunction. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Gwinnett County v. McManus" on Justia Law

Husband Ronald Friday appealed the trial court's order on a petition for contempt and a petition for modification of child support in his divorce. The Decree provided for an equitable division of the parties’ retirement assets. And, those assets awarded to Husband included the retirement accounts that were the subject of the trial court's order regarding a QDRO. Thus, ordering that Husband pay child support arrearages from his retirement accounts via a QDRO was a reapportionment of the retirement accounts, constituting a modification of the final decree, and was error. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed that portion of the trial court's order. View "Friday v. Friday" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted appellant Angela Buckner's (Wife) application for discretionary review of the trial court's order denying her motion to set aside the consent final judgment of divorce filed by appellee Mark Buckner (Husband) and denying her motion to rescind or reform the settlement agreement the parties signed. The parties appeared for a final hearing on their divorce proceeding but continued to negotiate in an attempt to reach a settlement. On that day, the parties memorialized an agreement by using a letter that had been prepared by Husband’s counsel as a prior settlement offer and modifying it with handwritten notations in the margins and handwritten terms on additional pages. The document was then signed by both parties and their counsel, and counsel announced to the court that the parties had reached an agreement and executed a settlement memorandum. The settlement document was filed with the clerk but not read into the record. Wife would later file a motion to set aside the terms of the settlement memorandum on the ground that the order was signed by mutual mistake, and did not represent a meeting of the minds. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed that part of the trial court’s order that denied Wife’s motion to set aside the settlement agreement, but reversed the trial court in denying her motion to set aside the "Consent Final Judgment and Decree." The Court also vacated the final judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Buckner v. Buckner" on Justia Law

Nathaniel and Lucy Boyd once owned a small parcel of commercial property in Fulton County, but according to the tax commissioner, they failed to pay their taxes, and as a result, the property was sold at a tax sale. The buyer, National Tax, gave its deed to Southeast Diversified Development, Inc., and Southeast Diversified gave a promissory note and deed to secure debt back to National Tax. That security deed later was assigned to JohnGalt Holdings, LLC. Southeast Diversified eventually defaulted on the promissory note, and JohnGalt foreclosed on its deed. In the meantime, the Boyds had made efforts to redeem the property with Southeast Diversified, by which the Boyds were to make periodic payments. The Boyds failed to make all of the payments required under this agreement. JohnGalt gave notice to the Boyds of its intent to foreclose their right of redemption, and the Boyds entered into a new agreement with JohnGalt, by which the Boyds were to make periodic payments to JohnGalt to redeem the property. Again, the Boyds failed to make all of the required payments. The Boyds then attempted to rescind their agreement with JohnGalt, and eventually sued JohnGalt for trespass and ejectment, contending that they had redeemed the property. JohnGalt promptly answered the suit, but it did not then assert a counterclaim to quiet title. About three years later, JohnGalt sought leave to amend its pleadings and assert such a counterclaim, and the trial court granted its request. The Boyds filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim, and JohnGalt filed a motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim. A special master concluded that JohnGalt had good title to the property by virtue of its foreclosure of the right of redemption. The trial court adopted the report of the special master and quieted title in favor of JohnGalt. The Boyds appealed, asserting several claims of error. Finding no reversible error, however, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Boyd v. Johngalt Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

Burke County, its Commissioners, and members of the Commission appealed the superior court’s grant of a writ of mandamus requiring the County to repair, maintain and construct certain roads dedicated to the County. In the preceding appeal and cross-appeal, the Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s grant of mandamus relief and remanded the case with direction for the court to reconsider under the proper legal standard that portion of its ruling requiring the County to construct and maintain a previously unopened section of roadway. On remand, the superior court again issued a writ of mandamus granting the relief requested and the County appeals. Upon reconsideration of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decision. View "Burke County v. Askin" on Justia Law

Four children-beneficiaries to the estate of Evelyn Copelan contested her will. Appellants sought to probate a will in which their mother left almost her entire estate to them, leaving only one dollar each to the appellees. In turn, the appellees opposed the admission of the will to probate, claiming that their mother was without testamentary capacity when she executed the will, and asserting that their mother made the will under the undue influence of the appellants. The probate court admitted the will to probate, the appellees sought review in the superior court. Following a jury trial, the superior court entered a judgment for the appellees, denying the petition of the appellants to probate the will. The appellants sought the Supreme Court's review. But finding no reversible error in the superior court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Copelan v. Copelan" on Justia Law

O. Wayne Rollins established ten irrevocable trusts, the Rollins Children's Trust (RCT), and nine Subchapter S-trusts, each for the benefit of his nine grandchildren. Wayne's sons, Gary and Randall, and a close friend of the elder Rollins, Henry Tippie, were named trustees. In 2010, four of the nine beneficiaries of the S-trusts brought suit against the trustees alleging breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty and seeking, among other things, an accounting of the family entities. The trial court awarded summary judgment to the trustees and refused to order a judicial accounting of the entities which held the trust assets. To this, the trial court noted, in part, that although the trustees failed to provide an accounting of the trust assets, plaintiffs ultimately received a report on trust assets and "complete relief" on their requests through discovery. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding: (1) plaintiffs were entitled to an accounting; (2) the trustees could be held to trustee-level fiduciary standards with regard to the family entities; and (3) genuine issues of material fact remained with regard to whether the trustees breached their fiduciary duties in administering the trusts. The issues this case presented to the Supreme Court were: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the trial court should have ordered an accounting of the family entities; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the appellants had trustee-level fiduciary duties. The Court answered 'yes' to both questions presented, and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Rollins v. Rollins" on Justia Law

Kenneth Brown appealed his convictions and sentences for malice murder, aggravated assault, and giving false information to a law enforcement officer, all in connection with the axe slaying of Charlotte Grant. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Brown’s sentences. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law