In this divorce action, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment awarding Gay H. Hammond alimony in the amount of $1,250 per month, once her husband’s pension matures, holding that she could not complain of any error in the trial court’s failure to utilize the time rule formula in determining the parties’ interest in the pension, after she induced the alleged error in urging the trial court to evaluate and distribute the pension as alimony. The Court also held that the trial court did not err in evaluating the alimony payment based on the assumption that the husband ceased participation in the pension plan beginning on August 31, 2009, since the parties introduced evidence evaluating the pension as of that date and neither party took steps to obtain and present updated pension values as of the hearing date. Next, some evidence supported the trial court’s valuation of the amount of alimony stemming from the husband’s pension; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the parties’ marital assets; and the trial court did not err in ruling that Hammond would be entitled to claim at least one-half of the mortgage interest deduction in any calendar year, after awarding her the marital residence. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring Hammond to indemnify her husband and hold him harmless for the debts, which the trial court ordered her to pay, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Hammond $4,074 in attorneys’ fees. Hunstein, C.J., concurred in Divisions 1, 2, 4 and 5 and in the judgment only.

Hammond v. Hammond, S11F1978, (02/06/12)

Fulton County Daily Report, February 10, 2012

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in the parties’ divorce case, holding that the trial court properly found that the two accounts which the husband established with inherited funds were marital property, since the accounts were transformed to marital property when the husband gave the wife an ownership interest in the property by establishing the accounts in both spouses’ names. Next, the trial court correctly found that the inherited real property was marital property, as the husband directed that the property be deeded to himself and his wife as tenants in common upon inheriting the property. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the husband all of the couple’s interest in an apartment complex, notwithstanding the husband’s initiation of a separate legal action to enforce his interest in the property and his payment of legal fees arising therefrom, where the interests in the apartment complex were bought during the marriage with marital funds, and the wife acquired a separate and distinct interest with the purchase of the property. Finally, the trial judge did not erroneously or improperly state, after the conclusion of the wife’s case-in-chief but before the husband’s presentation of evidence, that he didn’t see why it shouldn’t be decided 50-50 . . . I’ve not heard all the evidence . . . I know you haven’t had [Husband] on direct examination. But I’ve got a very good feel from this case. The record established that the judge made these statements only after the husband testified extensively as an adverse witness and the husband’s counsel thoroughly questioned the wife on cross-examination; the trial judge was only indicating the conclusion he believed the evidence supported thus far; and the prohibition against judicial comment was meant to apply to comments made in front of a jury, not comments made during a bench trial.

Shaw v. Shaw, S11F1586 (01/09/2012)

Fulton County Daily Report, January 13, 2012

Trial court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff’s former wife and her lawyer, affirmed, on claim alleging that defendants fraudulently induced plaintiff to sign unfair settlement agreement, and that lawyer breached his fiduciary duty, since plaintiff could not sue in tort for fraud or breach of fiduciary duty without first having final divorce decree set aside; rights of parties after divorce is granted are based not settlement agreement, but on judgment itself.

Jordan v. Jordan, A11A1207 (11/15/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, December 9, 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

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

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

Judgment denying father’s motion to vacate judgment of divorce AFFIRMED, and judgment modifying father’s custody order, AFFIRMED; father’s contention that divorce court lacked jurisdiction based on residency of his children, whom he alleged resided in Ethiopia when divorce was filed and when divorce decreee was issued in 2006, was moot, since trial court entered 2010 custody modificaiton and parenting plan order, it was uncontested that children and their mother resided in Dekalb county then and father submitted himself to trial court’s personal jurisdcition when he filed his cusotdy modificaiton pleading and he appeared for hearing on same; father’s contention that trial court erred in failing to make jurisdictional findings regarding children’s home state in body of 2010 custody modificaiton and parenting plan on basis that Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiciton Act generally requires such findings, rejected, since there is no such authority where, as here, trial court did not decline jurisdiciton on basis of being inconvenient forum or stay matter because of another custody action in foreign jurisdiciton.

Wondium v. Getachew, S11A0647 (05/16/2011)

Trial court’s final judgment of divorce and order holding wife in contempt of temporary order, AFFIRMED;  evidence of parties’ assets as well trial court’s statement that it did not find wife’s testimony credible showed that trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing marital property; trial court did not err in failing to award wife attorneys’ fees because record showed that trial court properly considered relative financial positions of parties; wife’s argument that trial court erred at conclusion of trial in ordering her to pay $76K balance on line of credit she took out on parties’ marital residence because she had no notice that such order would be issued, REJECTED, as trial court informed parties that it was considering such order, and line of credit was significant part of trial; wife’s argument that trial court could not issue such order because order prohibiting-her from taking out line of credit in first place was part of former divorce action which was subsequently dismissed, also rejected; even if trial court erred by referring to prior order, trial court had discretion to issue current order because it heard evidence that wife had been dissipating significant marital asset without notice to husband; trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding, despite her testimony to contrary, that wife had ability to pay remaining $8K of the 76K ordered by trial court and holding her in contempt for failure to do so; trial court did not err in denying wife’s motion for findings of fact and conclusion of law because wife moved for findings of fact after entry of judgment, and case was not so complex as to make appellate review impossible without specific findings.

Hunter v. Hunter, S10F1792 (03/25/11).

Fulton County Daily Report (April 8, 2011)

Order granting father’s petition to modify child custody rights awarded to mother in parties’ prior divorce decree, PARTIALLY REVERSED; mother’s claim of error in trial court’s custody award, DISMISSED, as child turned 18 shortly after instant appeal was docketed; trial court ERRED to extent that it required mother to pay child support pursuant to OCGA 19-6-15 (e), with no limit as to age, because financial assistance after child reaches age of majority but is still in secondary school is only required until child reaches age 20; trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to father, VACATED and case remanded, because original award of attorneys’ fees failed to include statutory basis for award of findings authorized award, and no evidence showed that mother received proper notice or opportunity for hearing.

Francis-Rolle v. Harvey, A11A0357 (05/05/11)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, May 20, 2011

Judgment denying father’s motion to vacate judgment of divorce AFFIRMED, and judgment modifying father’s custody order, AFFIRMED; father’s contention that divorce court lacked jurisdiction based on residency of his children, whom he alleged resided in Ethiopia when divorce was filed and when divorce decree was issued in 2006, was moot, since trial court entered 2010 custody modification and parenting plan order, it was uncontested that children and their mother resided in DeKalb county then and father submitted himself to trial court’s personal jurisdiction when he filed his custody modification pleading and he appeared for hearing on same;  father’s contention that trial court erred in failing to make jurisdictional findings regarding children’s home state in body of 2010 custody modification and parenting plan on basis the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act generally requires such finds, rejected, since there is no such authority where, as here, the trial court did not decline jurisdiction on basis of being inconvenient forum or stay matter because of another custody action in foreign jurisdiction.

Sondium v. Getachew, 11 FCDR 1470

From:  Fulton County Daily Report:  May 27, 2011