Judgment in parties’ divorce case, PARTIALLY REVERSED, and case REMANDED; final degree internally contradicted each party’s share of their minor child’s uninsured health case expenses, since test of decree required 61-39 percent split and incorporated child support addendum required 50-50 split; trial court erred in ordering husband to maintain minor child’s health insurance, without including that expense in calculating his child support obligation, since husband testified that his monthly heath premium would be $238, OCGA 19-6-15 (b)(6) requires proration of child care and health insurance expenses between parents in arriving at adjusted child support obligation and, under section (b)(7), trial court must modify adjusted child support obligation by factoring amount of health and child care expenses each parent actually pays; trial court did not abuse its discretion in requireingwife to pay half of loan balance as of date of divorce decree, rather than date of trial, even though trial court did not enter decree until 155 days after trial, since trial court has broad discretion in dividing marital property, and OCGA 15-6-21(a), which requires rulings on motion within 30 days after hearing in counties with less than 100K inhabitants applies only to motions for new trials, injunctions, demurrers, and all other motion, not to bench trials in divorce actions; trial court had discretion to order sale of parties’ residence and to account for how existing mortgage would be paid until sale; trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering husband to continue paying mortgage on marital residence, where he still resided, until he purchases home or it is sold; husband benefited from trial court’s omission of steps requiring pro ration of child care expenses under 19-6-15(b) because trial court order parents to split child care expenses equally and father’s pro rate share of expenses would have been 57&; trial court did not abuse its discretion in its visiation award.

Dupree v. Dupree, S10F0516 (06/07/2010), 10 FCDR 1824

Order granting maternal grandmother visitation rights with her daughter’s two children, pursuant to Georgia’s Grandparent Visitation Statute, AFFIRMED; daughter could not challenge visitation order, since she aided in causing order by moving trial court to enforce earlier visitation agreement and there was no evidence of fraud or mistake; daughter was authorized to file instant appeal, pursuant to OCGA 5-6-34(a)(11); Court declined to dismiss daughter’s appeal and denied grandmother’s motion to sanction daughter for filing frivolous appeal.

Hargett v. Dickey, A10A0762 (05/20/2010), 10 FCDR 1702

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (06/04/2010).

Order holding wife in contempt of parties’ divorce decree and declaring that wife would now pay 100 percent of costs associated with her supervised child visitation, AFFIRMED; trial court has express authority to modify visitation rights in contempt proceedings and cost in this case were directly associated with wife’s visitation privileges.

Carlson v. Carlson, S08A0704 (07/07/08), 08 FCDR 2286

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (07/18/2008)

Dismissal of father’s new/amended contempt application concerning mother’s alleged violation of his visitation rights, REVERSED; father had right under O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34 as amended to directly appeal dismissal of his contempt motion, father’s new contempt motion gave mother adequate notice of nature of his claim and trial court’s sua sponte dismissal without hearing did not afford father due process; mother’s contention that trial court lacked personal jurisdiction was meritless, even though mother had moved out of state, since father’s properly served prior contempt motion was still pending when he served mother with new/amended motion and father’s service of new/amended motion on mother’s attorney of record in prior pending action was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.

Dennis v. Dennis, A10A0500 (03/10/10), 10 FCDR

From the Fulton County Daily Report, 3/26/2010.

Judgment AFFIRMED in parties’ divorce action;  trial court did not abuse its discretion by setting visitation schedule; husband did not present his evidence to trial court, recommending that children have more time with non-custodial parent, nor did trial counsel raise argument at trial; husband’s contention that trial court did not ascertain reason he was earning less than his potential income, REJECTED;  although trial court did not make explicit findings in this regard, it was not required to make written findings and, thus, it cannot be said that trial court did not ascertain reasonableness of husband’s occupational choice.

Bankston v. Lachman, S09F1706 (02/01/2010), 10 FCDR 229.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 2/12/2010.