Judgment in this contempt case AFFIRMED; 21.9 acres, which surrounded parties’ 5-acre residential parcel, was not encompassed in their final judgment and divorce decree, and thus remained joint property; trial court did not improperly modify its decree, when it clarified that its reference in in decree to marital residence at stated address meant only 5-acre tract on which parties’ home sat, and not surrounding 21.9 acres, which parties also owned; appellant’s own actions belied his contention that marital residence described both tracts of land, since parties’ agreement provided that appellant would ‘
refinance the marital residence in his name only,”‘ which he did, refinancing debt on only 5-acre tract and its attendant house, appellant did not seek contempt citation until two years after appellee executed quitclaim deed to 5-acre tract, and he twice paid half taxes on 21.9-acre parcel, after appellant executed that deed; appellant’s contention that opinion in Messadi v. Messadi, 282 Ga. 126 (2007), stood for proposition that language, marital residence at stated address, required that term also encompass 21.9-acre tract on basis that it was never assigned street address different from that of lot upon which house sat, rejected, since fact that adjacent lot in Messaadi had separate address, and was not embraced by award of marital residence located at stated address, did not mean that use of term martial residence in concert with specific address would necessarily embrace separate lot when there not separate address.

Gonzales v. Crocket, S10A0452 (06/28/2010), 10 FCDR 2066

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (07/09/2010.

Judgment, AFFIRMED, in parties’ divorce action; record belied husband’s contention that terms of parties’ oral settlement agreement were still in dispute, since husband testified that he knew agreement would be set forth on record and did not object to any terms when wife’s attorney stated them on record and, thus, trial court did not err in finding that agreement existed between parties or in making agreement part of final decree; trial court did not abuse its discretion in DENYING husband’s request for attorney’s fees.

Sponsler v. Sponsler, S10F0299 (06/28/2010), 10 FCDR 2064

From:  Fulton County Daily Report 07/09/2010.

Denial of husband’s motion to set aside judgment in parties’ divorce case and his motion for new trial, AFFIRMED 5-2; evidence presumably supported trial court’s ruling in absence of transcription, and in any event, wife, in her pro se response, directly challenged husband’s factual assertion that providential cause prevented him from attending divorce trial; absent transcription and in light of trial court’s order granting divorce based on ground that marriage was irretrievably broken, husband could not show harm from service of wife’s amended complaint, adding allegations of crueltry and audltery, only two days before trial.

Holmes v. Roberson-Holmes, S10F0130 (05/17/2010), 10 FCDR 1607

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (05/28/2010)

Judgment in parties’ divorce action, AFFIRMED; trial court did not err in entering final divorce decree, after listening to attorneys state, without contradiction from other side, what their evidence would show, if formally presented; husband’s contention that no evidence supported trial court’s judgment, rejected, since attorneys are officers of court, and their statements, in lieu of live testimony and other evidence, if not objected to,  serve same function as evidence.

Rank v. Rank, S10F0032 (05/03/2010), 10 FCDR 1527

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (05/14/2010)

Denial of husband’s motion for a new trial, REVERSED, as trial court harmfully erred in denying husband’s motion without holding required hearing for oral argument; denial of husband’s motion to set aside judgment, AFFIRMED, trial court presumably ruled correctly, because husband did not present evidence showing that judgment was void on grounds that wife was not domiciled in Georgia for sex months prior to filing of divorce complaint.

Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk, S09F2030 (03/01/01), 10 FCDR 521

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

Judgment for husband AFFIRMED 4-3; by failing to file responsive pleadings, wife waived any right to notice regarding final hearing on divorce; cases cited by wife are distinguishable, because in one case, trial court expressly assured party that he would receive notice of final hearing and the other case dealt with unrepresented party, who was prevented from receiving notice by other party’s counsel’s extraordinary measures.

Ellis v. Ellis, S09F1798 (02/01/10), 10 FCDR 230

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 02/12/2010.

Judgment AFFIRMED, as evidence supported monthly child support awarded to appellee; appellant’s argument that his supplemental security income (SSI) was his sole income and, thus, he could not be liable for any amount of child support, rejected, because trial court granted appellant’s motion to exclude SSI benefits from its child support calculations;  appellant’s argument that trial court erred by imputing other income to him rejected, because trial court made all requisite findings; although appellee admitted that appellant was not willingly unemployed, trial court presumably resolved conflicting evidence properly in absence of transcript; appellant’s argument that his driving ability was insufficient to show his capability to find gainful employment, rejected, because trial court had opportunity to assess appellant and because substantial, unsupervised visitation with his son granted to appellant was inconsistent with his claim of severe disability, rendering him incapable of part-time employment.

Larizza v. Larizza, S09F1836 (02/01/2010), 10 FCDR 228.

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

Ruling on contempt sanction partially reversed; trial court impermissiby modified divorce decree when it ordered ex-husband to pay his ex-wife $1875 in lieu of transferring one-half of his 401(K) account to her;  contempt order did not merely clarify 401(K) provision in divorce decree, but transmuted award into presently-due-cash obligation; ample evidence supported trial court’s finding that ex-wife did not willfully disobey divorce decree provision requiring her to leave marital residence – run-down mobile home – in same condition; trial court did not fail to consider parties’ financial circumstances in awarding ex-wife $1,200 in attorney’s fees for contempt proceeding but trial court should reconsider fees on remand and consider revising it in its discretion to extent it was based on 401(k) issue; ex-husband waived right to closing argument at contempt hearing when he failed to request it.

Killingsworth v. Killingsworth, S09A1137 (11/23/09)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (12/4/2009)

GA orders granting sole custody of son to mother and sole custody of daughter to father, AFFIRMED;  mother’s contention that juvenile court erred in denying motion for reunification was meritless, since juvenile court sustained motion for reunification; juvenile court was authorized to find material change in circumstances because mother had suffered decline in mental health; juvenile court did not abuse discretion by determining that it was in daugher’s best interest to live with father, despite father’s acts of family violence; juvenile court did not err in denying mother’s discovery requests as untimely, because re-trial order required all discovery to be filed by 30 days after order and mother waited until almost nie moths later to file motion to compel discovery.

In the Interest of T.S. & L.S., A09A1294 (11/05/09)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (12/4/2009)

GA judgment upholding validity and enforceability of parties’ antenuptial agreement, AFFIRMED, 5-2; agreement was clearly contract made in contemplation of divorce, not contract made in contemplation of marriage, thus, agreement was not subject to OCGA 19-3-63′s dual attestation requirement – agreement addressed alimony and referred explicitly to possibility of divorce; record supported trial court’s finding that there are adequate pre-execution disclosure of husband’s financial statue – parties dated and/or lived together for more than 3.5 years before marriage, wife knew that husband owned professional building where she worked and wife knew that husband had siccessful real estte practice and knew about roughly 95 peson of land he owned when she signed agreement.

Lawrence v. Lawrence, S09A1370 (11/09/09)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (November 20, 2009)