Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Heather Kimbrough and Melissa Mayfield were charged by indictment with a violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The indictment alleged that Kimbrough and Mayfield, being associated with an enterprise, violated the Act by participating in the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, and it identified the alleged enterprise and pattern of racketeering activity. But other than the allegation that Kimbrough and Mayfield participated in the enterprise “through” a pattern of racketeering activity, the indictment said nothing at all about the alleged connection between the enterprise and the racketeering. Seeking more detail about that alleged connection, Kimbrough and Mayfield filed special demurrers. The trial court, however, denied the special demurrers, and Kimbrough and Mayfield appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the indictment contained enough detail about the connection between the enterprise and the racketeering activity to survive a special demurrer, and it affirmed the denial of Kimbrough and Mayfield’s special demurrers. The Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to review that decision, and reversed: “To be clear, we do not mean to suggest that a RICO indictment must contain pages and pages of extensive detail about the connection between the enterprise and the pattern of racketeering activity. We hold only that the sparse allegations of this indictment - which says nothing at all about the nature of the connection - are insufficient to enable the defendants to prepare for trial. Accordingly, the special demurrers ought to have been sustained, and the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the denial of the special demurrers.” In that respect, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed. View "Kimbrough v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Community Bank loaned money to several entities (“the Borrowers”) over the course of several years. The Borrowers executed five promissory notes, granting the bank a security interest in real estate located in three different counties. To further secure the loans, the Guarantors signed commercial guaranties (“the Guaranties”) in which they guaranteed full payment of the notes. In 2011, RES-GA foreclosed on and bought the properties that were serving as collateral. It then filed confirmation actions in the three counties in which the secured properties were located. In each instance, the court entered an order refusing to confirm the sale, finding that RES-GA had failed to prove that it obtained the fair market value of the property in question, and refusing to allow a resale. RES-GA appealed two of those orders, and the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed in each case. Last year, the Supreme Court held that compliance with OCGA 44-14-161, Georgia’s confirmation statute, “is a condition precedent to the lender’s ability to pursue a guarantor for a deficiency after foreclosure has been conducted, but a guarantor retains the contractual ability to waive the condition precedent requirement.” The Court granted certiorari in this case to consider additional questions regarding creditors’ ability to pursue deficiency actions against guarantors. The Court concluded that Jim York and John Drillot (“the Guarantors”) waived any defense based on the failure of creditor RES-GA LJY, LLC (“RES-GA”) to confirm the relevant foreclosure sales, and thus affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision that upheld deficiency judgments against them. View "York v. RES-GA LJY, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant James Voyles (Husband) and appellee Tara Voyles (Wife) were divorced in February 2015. In December 2015, Husband filed a petition in which he sought to hold Wife in contempt of the property distribution provisions of the divorce decree, in contempt of various portions of the parenting plan, and by later amendment sought to be named as the child’s primary physical custodian. Wife filed her own petition for modification and contempt, in which, among other things, she sought to modify the parenting plan incorporated into the divorce decree. Husband answered Wife’s petition and filed a counterclaim, again requesting in relevant part, a modification of custody to award him full or joint physical custody of the child. Wife moved to dismiss Husband’s petition for contempt and his counterclaim to her petition. Pursuant to a rule nisi, the trial court consolidated the two cases and conducted a joint hearing, at which Husband was not present. The trial court then entered a joint order granting Wife’s motion to dismiss Husband’s contempt petition (as amended) and his counterclaim to her petition; granting her motion to find Husband in contempt; granting her petition to modify the 2015 divorce decree with respect to various aspects of the parenting plan; and ordering Husband to pay past due unreimbursed health care expenses and attorney fees. Acting pro se, Husband filed a motion in which he sought to set aside the joint order and sought a new hearing on the ground that he was unaware of the hearing date because he had not received proper notice of it. After conducting a hearing, the trial court entered another order denying Husband’s motion to set aside and for a new hearing. Husband then filed a notice of appeal directed to the Court of Appeals seeking review of the latter order, and the Court of Appeals transferred the case to the Supreme Court. An issue remained as to whether Husband followed the proper procedure for seeking appellate review. The Supreme Court concluded he did not, and that the appeal had to be dismissed. The Court dismissed this case by opinion, as opposed to the usual dismissal order, so that it could clarify the law and provide guidance regarding which appellate procedure should be followed in a case like this one where the issue raised on appeal concerns a matter other than custody (here, whether the trial court properly denied Husband’s motion to set aside). View "Voyles v. Voyles" on Justia Law

Appellant Jamarrcus Sullivan was tried and convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with the shooting death of Kevin Daniel and aggravated assault of Kamenika Whatley. Sullivan appealed, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Though the Georgia Supreme Court found no merit in Sullivan’s claims of ineffective assistance, it did find error with regard to his sentences, and, therefore, the Court vacated the sentences and remanded for re-sentencing. View "Sullivan v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Wife Michelle Merrill appealed a trial court order denying her motion for attorney fees, which was based on the unsuccessful petition by husband Gary Lee to modify his child support obligation under the parties’ divorce decree. Because the settlement agreement incorporated into the divorce decree required a party who unsuccessfully seeks relief in connection with the agreement to pay the defending party’s reasonable attorney fees, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with direction to determine the amount of fees to which Wife is entitled. View "Merrill v. Lee" on Justia Law

Over a period of fifteen years, mother Helen Wynn undercalculated by more than $72,000 the amount of child support a court had ordered father Robert Craven to pay. When the father sought a change in custody, she then demanded payment. The trial court rejected her belated claim on the basis that it was barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court found that laches does not apply to claims for uncollected child support, and it reversed. View "Wynn v. Craven" on Justia Law

In 1999,Joe Carr was tried by jury and convicted of the murder of Ernest Golden. Carr’s conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Supreme Court, but the trial court granted Carr’s extraordinary motion for new trial after his brother confessed to the murder. Soon thereafter, Carr’s brother recanted his confession, Carr was retried, and Carr again was found guilty of Golden’s murder. Carr appealed, contending that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Carr also claimed that the trial court improperly “derailed” his attempt to enter into a favorable plea agreement prior to trial. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Supreme Court found no error, and affirmed. View "Carr v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellee J.B. was injured when certified registered nurse anesthetist (“CRNA”) Paul Serdula sexually assaulted her in a surgical suite in the dental practice of defendant-appellant Goldstein, Garber & Salama, LLC ("GGS"). The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in this matter to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that a reasonable jury could find that a third party’s sexual molestation of J.B. was an act foreseeable by GGS, whether that Court erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of GGS’s motion for a directed verdict on the issue of negligence per se, and whether GGS waived any objection to the jury verdict’s apportionment of fault. Finding the trial court should have granted GGS’s motion for directed verdict with respect to the foreseeability of Serdula's actions, it was error for the Court of Appeals to hold otherwise, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment. Furthermore, the Court determined the appellate court erred with respect to the directed verdict on the issue of negligence per se. The Court did not reach the issue of whether GGS waived any objection to the jury's apportionment of fault. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Goldstein, Garber & Salama, LLC v. J.B." on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Ezwekwesiri Ngumezi appealed his convictions for murder, armed robbery, and related charges, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt for armed robbery and that the trial court erred by denying a request to charge on voluntary manslaughter. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ngumezi v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Timothy Sapp was tried and convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with the shooting death of Christopher Smith. In his sole enumeration of error, Sapp claimed that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to authorize a conviction as, he alleged, he was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed Sapp’s convictions. View "Sapp v. Georgia" on Justia Law