Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Appellee, as executrix of the estate of her father, and her sister, brought a breach of contract action in which they asserted that their father's second wife, appellant, contractually waived her right to retain the proceeds of their deceased father's employer-provided 401K plan and life insurance policy by entering a settlement agreement incorporated into an order of separate maintenance executed approximately a year prior to the father's death. At issue was whether the court of appeals erred in finding that decedent's children could maintain a state law action against the decedent's surviving spouse to recover proceeds distributed to the spouse as the beneficiary of the decedent's ERISA-governed benefits plans, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., where the state law claims were based on a contention that the spouse waived her rights to such proceeds. The court answered in the negative, concluding that, in this case, since the proceeds of the ERISA-covered plans were paid out to appellant and were no longer in the control of the plan administrator, the trial court erred when it dismissed appellees' breach of contract claim against appellant. View "Appleton v. Alcorn, et al." on Justia Law

Husband filed a motion for contempt against his former wife, for closing a business checking account in violation of the parties' 2008 divorce decree. The trial court found wife in criminal and civil contempt for interfering with the operation of the business that had been awarded to husband as part of the divorce. The court granted wife's application for discretionary appeal to address whether the trial court abused its discretion in holding her in contempt. Because wife did not violate the terms of the decree or the agreements between the parties, the court reversed the judgment.

The court granted the application for discretionary appeal of husband from the trial court's order on a petition for contempt in a divorce case. The court held that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's finding that husband was in contempt of his obligation to refinance the couple's house. The court held, however, that the trial court's contempt order set forth an unequal division of the marital residence and this was an improper modification of the property division set forth in the settlement agreement. Further, the trial court's directive that husband sell or liquidate assets to pay down the mortgage was a modification of the settlement agreement and divorce decree.

In 2008, mother filed a petition for modification of custody and child support. After denying father's motion to dismiss for lack of venue, the trial court granted temporary physical custody of the child to mother in 2008 and permanent physical custody and child support in 2011. The court held that since there was evidence that supported the trial court's determination that father did not change his county of residence and was a resident of Cherokee County when mother filed her modification, the trial court did not misapply the law. Since there was evidence to support the trial court's award of custody of the child to one fit parent over the other fit parent, the court could not say that the trial court abused its discretion. Finally, to the extent that Harris v. Williams held that OCGA 19-9-3(g) did not authorize an award of attorney fees in an action seeking modification of child custody, it was overruled. Since mother's petition for modification of child custody did not fall within the parameters of OCGA 19-6-2(a) and fell within OCGA 19-9-3(g), the trial court's grant of attorney fees was pursuant to OCGA 19-9-3(g) and the court need not remand the case to the trial court for clarification of the statutory basis of its award. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Wife and husband were married in 1998 and wife filed a complaint for divorce in 2008. The parties resolved all issues by agreement except the disposition of certain real property which was purchased by wife prior to the marriage. In 2005, wife transferred the property into a family trust for the benefit of her three children. Considering the lack of any evidence of the value of the maintenance work performed by husband, the testimony of wife that he was paid for this work, the fact that husband used a portion of the property rent-free as a commercial recording studio, and the fact that the property paid for the mortgage through its own rents, the trial court had evidentiary support for its finding that any increased value in the property attributable to husband's contributions and the expenditure of marital funds was nominal. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion to divide the marital property equitably.

Wife and husband were married in 1997 and wife filed a petition for divorce in 2010. At issue was whether the marital residence was subject to equitable division. The trial court found that the marital residence was wife's separate property and awarded her sole possession. Husband applied for discretionary appeal and the court granted the application pursuant to the Court's Rule 34(4). The court, however, rejected husband's contention that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to enter a consolidated pretrial order in violation of OCGA 9-11-16 and a scheduling order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

The court granted wife's application for interlocutory appeal to determine whether the trial court erred by denying her motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Finding that the wife did not have sufficient "minimum contacts" within the State of Georgia, the court held that the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over the wife. The trial court did, however, have jurisdiction over the res of the marriage under OCGA 19-5-2. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Wife contended that the trial court erred in upholding in a final decree of divorce the jury's allegedly erroneous finding than an IRA in husband's name was husband's separate property that was not subject to equitable division. As a preliminary matter, the court held that wife did not waive any alleged error when her counsel stated affirmatively that wife had no objections to the "form" of the verdict returned by the jury. The court held, however, that because at least some evidence supported the jury's determination that husband's IRA was his separate property, the court affirmed the trial court's decision.

Wife and husband divorced and in the final order, the trial court awarded primary custody of the parties' children to husband and ordered wife to pay child support. The court granted wife's application to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 34(4). The court held that, in light of the guardian ad litem actually testifying at the final hearing and the fact that wife could not show that the trial court inappropriately relied on the guardian's report in any way, the court found any alleged error in the trial court's failure to admit the report into evidence was harmless. The court found no merit to wife's claim that the trial court had no other choice but to order husband to pay temporary child support in the manner she desired, rather than in the manner that it ordered. Further, the record belied wife's assertion that the trial court did not consider the parties' incomes when it made its final child support award. Finally, the court rejected wife's assertion that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings to support its custody and visitation findings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

In divorce proceedings, wife added husband's company, SJV, as a party to the proceedings. SJV filed an application to appeal, which the court granted pursuant to the now-expired Pilot Project, by which the court granted all non-frivolous applications for discretionary review from a final judgment and decree of divorce. The court held that there was evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that, after wife filed for divorce, husband violated the Standing Order by transferring the Cobb County property from Seiz Joint Venture #1 to SJV. Based on this transfer of property that was properly the subject of the divorce proceedings, the trial court was authorized to add SJV as a party in order to ensure that wife might be afforded complete relief in the case. The court also held that SJV was not required to make wife a voting member of the company in order to facilitate her receipt of company distributions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.