Final judgement and decree of divorce, AFFIRMED; trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to amke deviation from amount of presumptive child support for couple’s only child based on award of joint physical and legal custody because trial court made express findgs reguarding approporiateness of presumptive child support amount, and because evidence showed that trial court’s failure to deviate did not deprive child or unjustly enrich wife; because evidence showed that husbnad had ingested drugs during child’s lifetime, trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring that he be periodically drug tested; trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding joint physical custody of child because trial court found both parents to be fit and proper, acknowledging that each parent had strengths and weaknesses, and other evidence, namely  fact that child had good relationship with each parent and each parent had adequate housing for child and could provide for child’s needs, supported award; trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding which parent would have decision-making authority on variety of subjects regarding child; trial court did not err in entering judgement and decree of divorce within 10 months of filing of complaint or in failing to adopt wife’s recollected versionof what transpired during hearing in favor of court reporter’s certified transcript. 

Willis II v. Willis, S10F1357 (01/24/2011)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 2/4/2011.

Order denying plaintiff’s petition for contempt, alleging that her ex-husband failed to pay arrearage of $14,740.01 in support for their minor child as their custody order required, REVERSED; trial court erred in ruling that only command stated in definite terms in parties’ 2001 child support order was that plaintiff would pay $75 in child support to defendant each month until their other minor child reached age of 18; parties’ 2001 order specifically set defendant’s child support obligation for child in plaintiff’s custody at $640.87 monthly and that command in order that plaintiff pay defendant $75 per month until other minor child reached age of 18 was clearly practical accommodation to recognize fact that defendant had primary custody of that child ‘ “in liew of exchang[ing] the support checks …in the mail,”‘ as $75 represented difference in support obligations of each party to other; case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion and Court noted that plaintiff’s remaining enumerations of error were moot.

Woods v. Bradford,  S 10A0636 (11/08/2010), 10 FCDR 3587

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 11/19/2010.

Judgment particially REVERSED in ex-wife’s contempt action; trial court erred in holding ex-husband in contempt for relying on self-executing child support provision in parties’ divorce decree to reduce his support obligation when he had ex-wife’s consent for two children to live with him; provision in question provided that husband would pay monthly child support to wife for parties’ children while each child was lving at home with wife, Perry v. Perry 265 Ga. 186 (1995), allows for self-executing decrease of child support payments and ex-husband property relied on language of child support agreement as to parties’ eldest child; ex-husband’s failure to return parties’ middle child to ex-wife upon request warranted ruling of contempt, since she had primary physical custody and ultimate decision-making authority; trial court did not err in ordering return of middle child to ex-wife, but trial court should have calculated child support arrearage amount from time ex-husband lost consent to keep middle child, so order requiring husband to pay $8.4K in back child support for middle child, vacated, and case remanded for determination of proper amount in arrears; award of attorneys’ fees to ex-wife, vacated for reconsideration.

Tanner v. Morris, S10A1227 (11/01/10), 10 FCDR 3472.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 11/12/2010.

Judgement REVERSED in parties’ divorce case; undisputed evidence showed at least $18 difference in amount of child support set forth in parties’ separation agreement and amount mandated by child support guidelines, trial court’s order failed to set forth mandatory finding under O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15 for deviation from guidelines and wife’s voluntarily agreement to deviation could not chang this result; award of attorneys’ fees to husband following denial of wife’s motion for new trial/motion to set aside divorce decree, REVERSED, as fee award could not stand absent required findings of evidence of husband’s counsel’s work.

Holloway v. Holloway, S10F1417 (11/01/10), 10 FCDR 3471

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 11/12/2010.

Downward modification of child support award as well as modification of visitation and parenting time, AFFIRMED, after father petitioned for modifications of both child custody and child support awards based on his becoming unemployed; trial court DID NOT ERR in failing to make its downward modification of child support in child support, and thus O.C.G.A. § 10-6-15 (j), did not apply to keep child support from accruing; trial court DID NOT ERR in inputing income to father, despite his involuntary unemployment, because evidence showed that he was unemployed for proplonged period of time and did not make significant effort to gain employment; no factual basis supported father’s argument that trial court relied on incorrect estimate of mother’s income, since mother’s financial affidavit included both salary and tips; trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to modify downward father’s obligation reguarding child’s medical and dental exprenses because trial court was not required to allocate parties’ share of child’s healthcare expenses at same rate as their share of child support award, and parties did not present evidence on subject to trial court; trial court did not err in failing to address father’s visitation suggestions because it determined that there was no evidence of material change in circumstances warranting medification of current custodial agreement.

Galvin v. Galvin, S10A1104 (11/01/10), 10 FCDR 3467

From:  Fulton Count Daily Report, 11/12/2010.

Judgement REVERSED in parties’ divorce case; undisputed evidence showed at least $18 difference in amount of child support set forth in parties’ separation agreement and amount mandated by child support guidelines, trial court’s order failed to set forth mandatory findings under O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15 for deviation from guidelines and wife’s voluntarily agreement to deviation could not change this result; award of attorneys’ fees to husband following denial of wife’s motion for new trial/motion to set aside divorce decree, REVERSED, as fee award could not stand absent required finds of fact and evidence of husbnad’s counsel’s work.

Order on petition for contempt in divorce case, PARTIALLY REVERSED, since trial court ERRED  in ruling that husband was not obligated to pay termporary alimony payments that were payable prior to entry of remittitur in this case; temporary award continues in effect until entry of remittitur in trial court and, from that date on, any permanent award in final judgment takes effect; trial court did NOT ERR in in holding that temporary child support remained in effect until remittitur was entered;  husband was not in contempt for failing to make July and August, 2009 child suppport payments, since he tried to mail July check, but wife failed to sign for it, and he brought August check to August hearing; husband was not in contempt for failing to remove wife’s name from mortgage as he was unable to refinance property and demonstrated need for adidtional time to do so; husband was in contempt for failing to maintain life insurance paolicy in amount of $3M naming wife as successor trustee, despite any tax purposes for doing otherwise, as divorce decree expressly stated that he would do so; inlight of husband’s contempt, case remanded for determination of wife’s motion for attorney’s fees.

Robinson v. Robinson, S10A0929 (10/04/10), 10 FCDR 3170

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 10/15/2010.

Judgment ordering husband to pay lump-sum child support in excess of 201K, AFFIRMED, as nothing in O.C.G.A. § 10-6-15 expressly precludes lump-sum child support awards; 2007 version of guidelines statue did not eliminate trial court’s discretion to order lump-sum payments under appropriate circumstances, such as those in this case – father pled guilty to federal crimes, for which he received 5-year sentence, he lost his employment to to his crimes and he had spent all but approximately 200k of his 422k inheritance by time of trial; father’s speculative concern aout precluding futher modifiaction of his obligation was not ripe for adjudication; trial court acted within its broad discretion in declining to discount lump-sum payment to present value, given current economic climate in which even secure financial investments offer extremely low rates of return.

Mullin v. Roy f/k/a/ Mullin, S10F1120 (09/20/2010), 10 FCDR 3010.

Judgment PARTIALLY VACATED, denial of father’s petition to modify child support and custody terms established by consent order with his daughter’s mother, AFFIRMED; award of attorneys’ fees to mother VACATED AND REMANDED for evidentiary hearing; mother’s evidence regarding legal expenses was insufficient to determine whether award was reasonable, because mother offered only generalized proffer of evidence; trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying father’s petition, because trial court appropriately considered numerous relevant facts shown by evidence and some evidence supported its decision to reject father’s petition.

Lurry v. McCants, A09A1743 (02/01/2010), 10 FCDR 355.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 2/19/2010.

Judgment REVERSED in Gowins v. Gary, 284 Ga. App. 370 (2007), as trial court lacked authority to hold father in contempt of court for failing to make child support payments, which accrued under parties’ private settlement agreement prior to its incorporation into April 2005 court judgment; trial court held that it could not hold father in contempt for failing to pay child support prior to April 2005 judgment and Court of Appeals REVERSED, holding that “when the settlement agreement was incorporated in the April 2005 judgment and Court of Appeals reversed, holding that “when the settlement agreement from the date it was executed in July 2002 became the support obligations awarded by the court.”