Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Georgia Supreme Court
by
Wife filed for divorce in February 2010, and following a bench trial, the parties were divorced pursuant to a 2011 Final Order. The trial court reserved the issue of attorney fees at that time, but eventually denied Wife's motion for attorney fees in early 2012. The Supreme Court granted Husband's application to appeal with regard to the trial court's calculation of the parties' respective incomes for the purpose of determining alimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court's Final Order and remanded this case with direction that the trial court include in its Final Order a finding regarding each of the parties' respective gross monthly incomes. View "Demmons v. Wilson-Demmons" on Justia Law

by
The Georgia Supreme Court granted discretionary review in this case between Appellant and Georgia resident JoBeth Parker, and her then-husband, Appellee nonresident James Timothy Parker. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a final order of custody and child support. Appellant raised several issues relating to the child support award. Prior to the entry of the final order, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration to which she attached proposed alternative worksheets for each child. Although the motion was denied, its filing showed that the parties did not agree to the deviations set forth in the final order. The Georgia Court concluded that the trial court's finding that the parties did agree was therefore made in error. Upon remand, the trial court was required to enter a new final order revised based upon newly prepared child support worksheets. View "Parker v. Parker" on Justia Law

by
DHS, on behalf of the minor child of Johnny Wright (father), filed a complaint against him, asking the superior court to order Father to pay child support and maintain accident and health insurance, and enforce the order through an income deduction order. During a hearing on the complaint, the trial court learned that Father was currently married to Monica Wright, the mother of the child, and that no divorce or separate maintenance action had been filed. The court concluded that without an order, neither parent is the "custodial parent," and concluded that DHS therefore had no authority to pursue an award of child support. The Supreme Court, after its review, reversed, finding that DHS could seek a child support award against one parent without a divorce action. View "Georgia Dept. of Human Services v. Wright" on Justia Law

by
Benjamin and Molly Riddell were divorced in 2007. In 2009, Benjamin was granted a modification of his child support obligation. He became delinquent in his support payments. Molly moved to have Benjamin held in contempt of the child support order; Benjamin responded by moving the court to reconsider his support obligation. In 2012, the trial court held Benjamin in contempt and denied his motion for re-modification. On appeal, Benjamin argued that the trial court's denial of his motion for a second modification of his support obligation was in error. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to take into consideration the change in Benjamin's income since the first support modification. Accordingly, the trial court's decision was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Riddell v. Riddell" on Justia Law

by
Marlene and Michael Zekser divorced in 2011. Marlene appealed the final divorce decree, arguing that the division of the marital assets and debts was inequitable. Finding no error in the division, the Supreme Court affirmed the final decree. View "Zekser v. Zekser" on Justia Law

by
Helen and Andreas Eversbusch married in June 1985. After marital problems arose in 2001, the couple engaged in counseling and other efforts in an apparent attempt to save their marriage. In January 2002, Helen prepared a six-page document in letter form entitled "Letter of Agreement between Andreas W. Eversbusch and Helene H. Eversbusch" ("Agreement") outlining, behavioral expectations for continuing the marriage, alleged promises between the parties, and "[i]n the unfortunate event of divorce" summary provisions for division of the parties' substantial assets, custody of their children, and alimony and child support. Several years later, marital problems again arose, and in January 2012, Helen filed a complaint for divorce. In May, she filed a motion to enforce the Agreement, requesting that the superior court enter an order finding that the Agreement was legally valid, and therefore, that it resolved "all issues regarding equitable division of property and permanent alimony." The Supreme Court granted interlocutory appeal from a Superior Court order that denied Helen's motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the Superior Court did not err in denying the motion, and affirmed. View "Eversbusch v. Eversbuch" on Justia Law

by
Appellant Troy Lee and appellee Vanessa Vickers Arthur were married in April 1995 and are the parents of two minor boys. Husband filed for divorce in October 2010, with Wife filing a counterclaim for divorce shortly thereafter. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered the final judgment and decree on January 31, 2012 that awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children, with Wife given primary physical custody and ultimate decision-making authority. The final judgment also made an equitable division of marital property that, among other things, awarded the marital home to Wife after finding that Husband stated he did not want it. Without making a finding regarding the value of the marital estate, the final judgment made the award of the marital home subject to Wife's obligation to assume and hold Husband harmless from the existing indebtedness on the property. It also required Wife to use her best effort to refinance the indebtedness in order to remove Husband from the indebtedness and generate funds to pay Husband for his interest in the home and, if not successful in refinancing the home, to pay Husband with interest from the date of the decree. The final judgment granted Wife an indefinite amount of time to pay Husband should the refinancing be unsuccessful. Husband objected. Husband filed a motion for new trial which was denied. Finding fault with the trial court's equitable division of marital property and with the grant of physical custody of the children to Wife, Husband filed an application for discretionary review of the trial court's final judgment and the order denying the motion for new trial. In granting the application, the Supreme Court expressed concern with: whether the trial court erred by failing to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in response to Husband's request made pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-52; and whether the trial court erred in its division of marital property by allowing Wife to delay the ultimate division of the marital home's value for an indefinite period of time. An obligation of a party relating to the equitable division of property may not be extended for an indefinite period of time. Accordingly, that portion of the final judgment that provides an indefinite period of time for the Wife to pay Husband was reversed. Husband's request for a new trial was moot in light of the Court's decision as the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Arthur v. Arthur" on Justia Law

by
Appellant-mother appealed a superior court order that refused to modify a foreign jurisdiction's award of custody to Appellee-father. The mother contended that the superior court erred in refusing to take jurisdiction of the case under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the superior court's dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction. View "Jackson v. Sanomi " on Justia Law

by
Carl and Nekissta Williams were divorced in June 2009. The terms of the original divorce decree held that Nekissta was to have primary physical custody of their children, and Carl was to pay a certain amount each month to Nekissta as child support, an amount based in part on a finding that Carl at that time had a gross monthly income of $4,166.67. Sixteen months later, Carl filed a petition to modify his child support obligation, claiming that he had lost his job since the divorce. Following a hearing, the trial court found that Carl by then had a gross monthly income of only $3,400, and based on this finding, the trial court granted his petition to modify the divorce decree. Nekissta appealed, contending that the finding of gross monthly income was in error. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed, reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Williams v. Williams" on Justia Law

by
Appellant Randall Craig Driver (Husband) contended that the trial court erred in its equitable division of the marital property, in its lump-sum alimony award to appellee Andria Elizabeth Driver (Wife), in making certain findings that affected the equitable division and the alimony award, and in denying his motion to reopen the proof. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Driver v. Driver" on Justia Law