Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

In early 2012, the trial court entered a final judgment in the divorce action filed by appellee Jeffrey Rymuza (Husband) against appellant Andreana Rymuza (Wife). Husband filed for divorce in Houston County. The complaint sought a divorce on the grounds of Wife's cruel treatment and that the marriage was irretrievably broken, and requested equitable division of the parties' assets and liabilities, the return of certain property, attorney fees, and a restraining order preventing Wife from disposing of assets or entering the marital residence. Nine days after the final hearing but before a written order was entered, Wife's attorney filed on Wife's behalf an answer and counterclaim and a premature motion to set aside the order. In the answer and counterclaim, Wife disputed that venue was proper in Houston County, sought a divorce on the grounds of adultery and cruel treatment and asked to be awarded, among other things, the marital residence in Houston County and "all monetary assets held by" Husband. In the motion to set aside, Wife claimed that the court prevented her at the final hearing from presenting evidence and cross-examining Husband on the merit's of his complaint and that she was not allowed to address the appropriateness of the notice by publication or the veracity of Husband's allegations in support thereof. Finding that Wife failed to carry her burden to show the errors alleged, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment and final decree. View "Rymuza v. Rymuza" on Justia Law

Robert Hamilton (husband) and Janell Hamilton (wife) were divorced in 2008, after approximately 23 years of marriage. At the time of their divorce, they had one minor child. The final divorce decree ordered husband to pay, in addition to other alimony to wife, the sum of $6,000 per month until 2013, provided that the child was enrolled in a full time student at an accredited higher education institution. If the child was not enrolled in good standing, then on the first month following the child not being enrolled, husband would pay $4,000.00 until 2013. The decree further required wife to immediately inform husband of any change in the child's enrollment status which could trigger a change in husband's alimony obligation. In the event wife knowingly failed to inform husband of a change in status and husband overpaid, the overpayment was fully reimbursable plus a ten percent interest penalty. The child attended Georgia Southern University beginning in Fall 2009, but in his first three semesters, struggled academically. the child switched schools and for the spring semester, achieved a 4.0 grade point average. Husband paid $6,000 per month in alimony to wife through January 2011. In February 2011, after learning of the change in schools, husband reduced his alimony payments to $4,000 per month and simultaneously filed a petition to hold wife in contempt of the final decree arguing she failed to notify him that the child had lost "good standing" at Georgia Southern University. The trial court concluded wife was not in contempt of the final decree; but construing the decree, the trial court determined husband's alimony obligation for the 13-month period from January 2010 through May 2011 was $4,000 per month, resulting in a $26,000 overpayment to wife. The trial court further concluded, however, that the child regained his status as a full-time student in good standing in June 2011, thereby reinstating husband's $6,000 per month alimony obligation for June through October 2011. Because husband paid only $4,000 per month in those five months, the court held husband owed wife a deficiency of $10,000. Deducting the amount husband owed wife from the amount he was owed for his overpayment, the trial court relieved husband from paying alimony to wife until the $16,000 balance was paid. Husband's request for attorney fees and his request for an interest penalty on the overpayment were denied, and he appealed. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Hamilton v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a superior court was able to exercise jurisdiction to award permanent custody of a child when a juvenile court previously found the child to be deprived and placed the child in the custody of a "willing and qualified" relative until the child turned eighteen years old. The appellate court answered the question in the negative; the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. "The case before us is not one in which the principle of priority jurisdiction can be invoked because only one court, the superior court, has jurisdiction to award permanent custody of a child. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals." View "Ertter v. Dunbar" on Justia Law

John Allan Hendry and Sally Frances Hendry were married in 1998, and after three children were born during their marriage, they divorced. In its final judgment and decree of divorce, the trial court awarded primary physical custody of the children to Sally, and it ordered John to pay $2,400 to Sally each month as child support. John appealed, contending that the court erred in several respects in its determination of his child support obligations. While the Supreme Court agreed with John that the trial court erred when it calculated his gross income to include amounts that his employer pays him to reimburse the costs of his family health insurance premiums, it found no merit in his other claims of error. Accordingly, the Court affirmed in part, reverse in part, and remanded for the trial court to recalculate his gross income and to consider again the amount of his child support obligation. View "Hendry v. Hendry" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Todd Jarvis (“Husband”) and appellee Tracy Dorminy Jarvis(“Wife”) were married in March 1997. Husband filed for divorce in 2009. After a five-day bench trial in March 2011, the trial court granted the parties a divorce by final judgment. The trial court gave Wife primary physical custody of the couple’s three children and required Husband to pay child support. In addition to child support, the trial court ordered Husband to pay alimony for thirty-six months or until Wife’s remarriage or death, or until Husband’s death, whichever occurred first. The trial court reserved the matter of attorney’s fees for later disposition upon motion made by the parties. Wife subsequently moved for an award of attorney’s fees, the trial court held a hearing, and the trial court later awarded Wife attorney's fees. On appeal, Husband contended that the trial court abused its discretion when it considered evidence that Husband received financial support from his mother when considering the financial circumstances of the parties for the purpose of awarding attorney’s fees.1 Husband also contended that the trial court erred when it ordered that his estate continue to pay his support obligations temporarily in the event there is any delay in the disbursement of proceeds from his life insurance policy. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jarvis v. Jarvis" on Justia Law

Appellant Richard Odom (husband) and appellee Sherri Odom (wife) were divorced in 2007. The decree, which incorporated the parties’ settlement agreement, awarded wife primary custody of the parties’ three minor children and ordered husband to pay child support. The decree also required husband to pay private school tuition for the 2008-2009 academic year and provided that he “shall not be responsible for any expense for private school other than set out in [the parties’ settlement agreement].” In 2008, husband filed a petition to modify visitation and to hold wife in contempt of the final decree. Wife answered and filed a counterclaim for modification of child support. Following a hearing attended by both parties and their counsel, the trial court entered an order denying husband’s motions and granting wife’s motion for an upward modification of child support. The court determined there had been a substantial change in husband’s income and financial status sufficient to warrant an increase in child support, and after conducting the calculations required for determining child support under the child support guidelines, ordered an increase in husband’s monthly child support to cover the expenses of private school for the children. The trial court deviated from the presumptive child support award based on its conclusion that the “presumptive award would be unjust and/or inappropriate because the educational needs of the children of the parties could not be met with an award of the presumptive amount.” Husband appealed that portion of the trial court’s order granting wife’s motion for modification of child support. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no abuse of the trial court's discretion and affirmed the judgment. View "Odom v. Odom" on Justia Law

Appellant Jill E. Eldridge (Wife) filed for divorce from appellee Joshua R. C. Eldridge (Husband) after more than seven years of marriage. Following a bench trial, the trial court issued a final judgment and decree of divorce in which it granted joint legal custody of the couple's two children to both parents and primary physical custody to Wife; ordered Husband to pay $1379 per month in child support; assigned to Wife responsibility for her student loans; and adopted its own parenting plan. The Supreme Court granted Wife's application for discretionary review and concluded that the trial court erred: (1) in its determination of child support by failing to make mandatory written findings in granting a deviation and in applying an incorrect conversion factor in calculating Wife's monthly child care costs and (2) in adopting a parenting plan that failed to specify when Husband's weekend visitation begins and ends. Accordingly, the Court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with direction. View "Eldridge v. Eldridge" on Justia Law

The trial court held Randy Horn (Husband) in contempt for violating his divorce decree with Brandie Shepherd (Wife) and ordered him incarcerated until he purged himself of the contempt. Husband appealed, and the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in requiring him to pay attorney fees associated with the contempt proceeding in order to purge the contempt; the Court therefore reversed that small portion of the trial court's judgment. Husband's "many other enumerations of error" were without merit, and the Court affirmed the remainder of the judgment. View "Horn v. Shepherd" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Husband's application for discretionary appeal to consider whether the trial court erred in determining his child support obligation when he petitioned to modify it. Upon review, the Court concluded that the trial court indeed erred in its ruling. Husband raised two other issues, but the Court found no merit to them. Accordingly, the Court partly affirmed the trial court, partly reversed, and remanded the case for recalculation of the support obligation. View "Wetherington v. Wetherington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted discretionary appeal of the parties' final judgment and divorce decree. After review, the Court affirmed most of the trial court's judgment. The Court found that the divorce decree included a deviation from the statutory child support guidelines without the written findings that are statutorily required to support the deviation. Therefore, the Court reversed that part of the judgment and remanded the case for a redetermination of child support. View "Walls v. Walls" on Justia Law