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 Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Robert W. Leavenworth’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against his daughter’s maternal grandparents after the juvenile court dismissed the grandparents’ deprivation action against him, holding that the juvenile court properly concluded that it was not authorized to impose attorneys’ fees under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14. The juvenile courts have not adopted O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14, there is no implicit attorneys’ fee award for frivolous litigation in the Juvenile Court Code, and English v. Milby, 233 Ga. 7 (1974), holds that the Civil Practice Act does not apply to juvenile courts.

In the Interest of T. M. M. L., A11A 1589 (01/24/12)

Fulton County Daily Report, February 3, 2012

The Supreme Court partially reversed the order retroactively extinguishing William Branham’s alimony obligation to his former wife Jenny Nicholson f/k/a Branham, holding that the trial court’s order vitiated the finality of the judgment obtained as to each past due installment and was therefore clearly contrary to the rule set forth in Hendrix v. Stone, 261 Ga. 874 (1992). However, the Court affirmed that portion of the order providing that each party would be responsible for his or her own attorneys’ fees, holding that Nicholson waived her right to challenge the order under O.C.G.A. § 19-6-19 (b), where she acquiesced in the trial court’s ruling, never requested attorneys’ fees and failed to provide any evidence supporting a claim for attorneys’ fees.

Branham v. Branham, S11A1896 (01/09/12)

Fulton County Daily Report, January 13, 2012

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

Judgement modifying final divorce REVERSED, as trial court erred in modifying decree in order that each ‘ “party shall pay fifity percent of all reasonable medical expenses not covered by the minor child’s medical insurance’ ” since parties settlement agreement specifically expressed that father was to be responsible and pay for all reaonable and necessary uninsured medical, dental and orthodontic expenses; trial court did not err in refusing to find father in contempt of his obligation under settlement agreement to provide health insurance for child, since trial court did not declare that obligation to provide health insurance did not exist or purport to relieve father of that obligation; trial court erred infailing to find father in contempt for failing to pay child support and to impose sanctions, since father admitted on cross examination that his counsel stipulated to amount of his arrearages and Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”) did not deprive trial court of jurisdiciton over that matter as UIFSA provides that tribunal in Georgia issuing suppport order has continuing jurisdicion with respect to modificaiton of child support orders where, as here, mother and child reside in Georgia and no evidence exists that parties have filed written consents to allow another state’s tribunal to assume continuing exclusive jurisdiction; trial court erred in ruling that father was not in contempt for failing to comply with obligation to refinance 1998 Jeep Cherokee, resulting in mother being liable for 15K in outstnding debt; trial court should address issue on remand that father was in contempt for failing to comply with privision requireing him to pay mother’s divorce attorney $3,750 in attorney’s fees; trial court erred in ruling that father was not in contempt for violating privision in settlement requireing him to maintian life insurance coverage in the amount of 130K; trail court should address on remand mother’s contention that father should be held in contempt for failing to pay $228.60 of child’s uninsured medical expenses; trial court did not err in ruling that father was not in contempt for violating his  obligation to provide medial and dental insurance for child; trial court did not err in finding mother in contempt of decree for severing telephonic communication between father and child; case remanded for futher proceedings reguarding denial of mother’smotion for attorney’s fees under O.C.G.A. § 19-6-2.

Baars v. Freeman, S10A1779

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, April 1, 2011

Judgment increasing mother’s child support obligation, REVERSED, as trial court erred in modifying it without finding substantial change in mother’s income, since entry of final divorce decree; mother’s monthly income has decreased from $2.1K to $0, due to her decision to become a stay-at-home mother to her child from her new marriage, even if trial court correctly disregarded voluntary reduction in mother’s income, evidence did not show increase in mother’s income in 2 1/2 years since her divorce, and neither party presented evidence of mother’s husband’s income; trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to father under OCGA 19-9-3(g) and 19-6-15(K)(5), since father was not prevailing party, in light of fact that evidence did not support increase in child support award; evidnece did not support attorneys’ fee award under any statute, in any event, as father did not provide his attorney’s actual costs or reasonableness of those costs; trial court used correct standard of whether this was material change in condition affecting children’s well being in ruling that evidence supporte denial of mother’s petition for modification of custody; mother failed to show that father’s mother’s home was inadequate for their children, that father’s late shifts at work materially affected children’s welfare, or that allowing their daughter to finish out last six wweeks of her school year at her previous school, after father moved with children to his mother’s home, adversely affected her well-being.

Harris v. Williams, A10A0294 (06/11-2010), 10 FCDR 1918.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (06/25/2010)

Judgment AFFIRMED in parties’ divorce action; trial court DID NOT abuse its discretion in awarding wife $50K in lump sum alimony, since evidence supported trial court’s findings regarding husband’s income level; trial court DID NOT abuse its discretion in determining that home in Tattnall county was wife’s separate property, since husband quitclaimed any interest he had in property to wife prior to their second marriage; trial court DID NOT abuse its discretion in awarding wife her retirement account, given trial court’s diligent separation of parties’ assets and overall asset distribution; trial court DID NOT err in calculating child support; evidence of husband’s adulterous acts during parties’ second marriage revived his prior acts during their first marriage as admissible evidence; trial court DID NOT abuse its discretion in awarding wife attorneys’ fees; husband had reasonable notice that trial court would consider wife’s contempt claims based on unpaid child support at divorce trial.

Wood v. Wood, S07F1474 (01/08/08), 08 FCDR 66

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (01/25/08)

Judgment AFFIRMED in parties’ divorce case; trial court was not required to factor children’s private school tuition into its child support calculations and was not required to explain its decision in that regard, since it did not deviate from child support obligation table; trial court DID NOT ERR in failing to include dates for payment of modified child support payments in its temporary modification order, since original dates for payments, 15th and 30th day of each month, remained in effect, through final judgment, which changed payment dates to 1st and 15th day of each month; trial court acted within its broad discretion in setting amount and terms of payment of any attorney’s fee awards; trial court acted within its discretion in requiring wife to pay children’s heath insurance premiums through her employer-sponsored heath care plan.

Johnson v. Johnson, S08F1251 (09/22/08), 08 FCDR 2935.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (10/03/08)

Judgment in child support case, VACATED, as trial court erred in awarding child support without making required written findings under OCGA § 19-6-15(c)(2); trial court erred in ruling that both parties would be responsible for their own attorneys’ fees, since parties agreed that party found in contempt of consent order would be responsible for payment of other party’s attorneys’ fees and trial court found mother in contempt; case remanded with direction that trial court enter order consistent with § 19-6-15 and award of attorneys’ fees consistent with parties’ agreement.

Roberts v. Tharp, S09A1961 (03/01/10), 10 FCDR 516.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 03/12/2010)

Judgment AFFIRMED in parties’ divorce case; trial court correctly applied source of funds rule in classifying sales proceeds from wife’s premarital house as her sole and separate property – unemployed husband presented no proof that he made alleged mortgage payments or performed any handyman work around house; husband’s claim regarding wife’s bank and credit union accounts failed, absent findings of fact, which neither party asked for; husband failed to show that trial court erred in awarding wife attorneys’ fees for his stubborn litigiousness; husband could not show that he was without fault in failing to appear at trial since he had ample notice.

Windham v. Araya, S09F1457 (02/08/2010), 10 FCDR 322