Denial of mother’s and maternal grandmother’s motion to dismiss paternal grandparents’ petition for visitation rights or in alternative to transfer case for improper venue, reversed, as mother was not properly served with process , even though she was subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to Georgia’s long-arm statute; clear and convincing evidence rebutted paternal grandparents’ prima facie case of proper service under long-arm statute based on sheriff’s return of service, since sheriff served mother at maternal grandmother’s prior Georgia address, even though mother was residing in Arizona at that time, and paternal grandparents submitted no evidence showing that service was proper other than sheriff’s return of service; venue was not proper in Effingham county, since maternal grandmother moved to Chatham county before paternal grandparents filed their petition; although maternal grandmother continued to utilize her former Effingham county residence address to retain certain benefits including filing temporary guardianship petition there and keeping her children in Effingham county schools, evidence showed that she was domiciled in Chatham county, so case remanded with direction for trial court to transfer it to Chatham County Superior Court.

Oglesby v. Deal, A11A1239 (09/08/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, September 23, 2011

Judgment partially reversed in parties’ divorce case, as trial court erred in finding that wife’s trade account was marital property subject to equitable division; evidence showed that wife brought account to marriage, no marital funds were placed into account and account’s value rose or fell with market, so approximately $74K left in account at end of marriage was wife’s separate property; trial court did not err in applying source of funds rule to husband’s office property and not to $210K that wife withdrew from her trade account during marriage and placed in parties’ joint account for real estate investment, since husband’s office property was relatively static asset, which could be more easily valued, and no evidence established total amount of non-marital and marital components of joint account; trial court did not err in crediting husband’s uncontradicted testimony that he contributed $20K in premarital funds to his office; wife would not complain about trial court’s valuation of husband’s non-marital interest in office or unencumbered land adjacent to marital home after she agreed to use of county tax records to determine value of parties’ various real estate properties.

Highsmith v. Highsmith, S11F1052 (09/12/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, September 23, 2011

Order refusing to allow husband to seek downward modification of child support pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15 (j), reversed, as floor amount of child support provided in parties’ settlement agreement did not construe clear and express waiver of right of modification; parties’ decision not to include in their agreement well-worn waiver language set forth in Varn v. Varn, 242 Ga. 309 (1978), or its equivalent, suggested that they did not intend to forbid statutory downward modification of husband’s child support obligation, even below floor amount.

Dean v. Dean, S11A0739 (09/12/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, September 23, 2011

Dismissal of biological mother’s appeal from denial of her motion for new trial following grant of petition to terminate her parental rights, affirmed, as trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that mother’s failure to timely pursue filing of transcript or seek extension of time for almost one year was unreasonable and inexcusable; although mother argued that dismissal of appeal deprived her of due process because of significance of terminating her parental rights, Court held that need to reach final resolution expeditiously applied in such cases because children need permanence of home and emotional stability and should not be required to linger indefinitely in foster care.

In the Interest of T. H. , A11A1028 (08/26/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, September 9, 2011

Grant of wife’s petition for temporary family violence protective order against husband pursuant to Family Violence Act, affirmed, as any discrepancy between trial court’s oral pronouncements and written judgement must be resolved in favor of written judgment, and O.C.G.A. § 19-13-4 does not require that family violence protective order include written findings of fact and conclusions of law; record belied husband’s contention that trial court authorized wife’s attorney to decide amount of child support award, as standardized form order contained handwritten language and deletions made by trial court; trial court did not err in concluding that it had no authority to direct clerk of court to withhold transmission of family violence protective order to Georgia Protective Order Registry because language of O.C.G.A. § 19-13-53 (b) required such transmission, without exception, and trial court did not have discretion to convert family violence petition into civil restraining order in parties’ divorce action.

Birchby v. Carboy, A11A1355 (08/29/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, September 9, 2011

Judgment of father’s petition for legitimation and visitation, partially vacated; absent transcript, record presumably supported trial court’s findings that custody and visitation decision was in child’s best interest, and evidence presumably supported trial court’s findings regarding child support; grant of $2.5K in attorneys’ fees to mother, vacated, and case remanded, as trial court’s order failed to specify any basis for award.

Charlot v. Goldwire, A11A0684 (07/01/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, July 22, 2011

Trial court’s determination in this action in equity that petitioner failed to exercise reasonable diligence in pursuing her equitable claim, affirmed; petitioner stated that alleged settlement agreement was supposed to have been incorporated in her divorce decree, but she failed to take any action to remedy that omission for 12 years, she took no action for five years after alleged pension payments became due but were not paid, she failed to act when payments she alleged were made under agreement were reduced in amount and paid only sporadically and she waited additional two years after alleged pension payments stopped altogether to bring this action seeking equitable relief in form of constructive trust.

Davis v. Davis, A10A2195 (07/06/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, July 22, 2011

Finding that minor child was deprived, reversed; no clear and convincing evidence showed that mother was unfit to care for child; evidence that child was wearing only diaper during summer day, lack of variety of food in home, physical discipline of child, and dirty home did not support finding that child had been or would be harmed; additionally, no evidence showed that mother’s failure to accept support services harmed child.

In the Interest of J.H., A11A0125 (07/01/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, July 22, 2011

Order removing child custody from mother and granting custody to father, reversed; trial court does not have authority to modify final order of custody during contempt proceeding; trial court should not have granted motion for service by publication because father’s statement that father checked telephone information and directories did not show that father exercised due diligence in attempting to contact mother; specifically, father had been instructed to mail information to mother’s former address and had mother’s phone number and email address; moreover, service by publication did not give mother notice that custody action was pending because notice only mentioned contempt action related to visitation.

Coker v. Moemeka, A11A0005 (07/01/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, July 22, 2011

Nunc pro tunc order, affirmed, in divorce case, as trial court properly used such order to cause written judgment of divorce to relate back to date of original divorce hearing and ruling; on June 1, 2000, trial court issued final divorce decree, however decree was not filed with clerk until August 1, 2002 and meanwhile parties remarried on June 25, 2000; wife again filed for divorce on June 29, 2010, and at that time, parties learned that final decree in first divorce had not been filed until 2002; wife sought to amend 2000 judgment, husband sought to dismiss 2010 petition for divorce, and trial court amended order in 2000 case by entering order nunc pro tunc to ensure that it reflected true judgment rendered—that parties were to be divorced on June 1, 2000.

Maples v. Maples, S11F0919 (07/11/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, July 22, 2011