3330 Cumberland Blvd., 100 City View, Suite 999, Atlanta, GA 30339


Case Law Review

*All courts mentioned are at the state level.

Brooker v. Brown, A10A1585

Trial court properly denied petition to modify custody and child support. Evidence was not sufficient to find that defendant, the primary custodian, was negligent in caring for the child or deficient in meeting child’s medical needs. Trial court did not err in declining to strike defendant’s testimony on the grounds that she was guilty of Read More

Spread the love

Carroll v. Carroll, A10A2332

Following a final hearing in a custody modification action, the trial court awarded primary physical custody of the three minor children to their father. The mother appealed, claiming the trial court committed harmful error in reviewing testimony previously submitted by affidavit.  The parties submitted affidavits in anticipation of a temporary hearing which was subsequently canceled. Read More

Spread the love

Davis v. Davis, S10A2070

Parties were divorced in Louisiana, a community property state. After moving to Georgia 12 years later, Wife attempted to domesticate the decree and implement a constructive trust on her interest in Husband’s military retirement benefits. Court of Appeals transferred the case to the Supreme Court based on SC’s jurisdiction over all divorce and alimony cases, Read More

Spread the love

DeRyke v. Teets, S10A0710

Husband and Wife entered into a settlement agreement which provided that each party waived all of his or her right, title, and interest in and to, among other things, employment benefit plans.  The settlement agreement was incorporated into their final judgment and decree of divorce which was entered on September 25, 2008. Five days after Read More

Spread the love

Galvin v. Galvin, S10A1104

Father petitioned for modification of custody and child support based on being unemployed. Downward modification of support that is retroactive to the date Father sought modification was not required, as Father only sought downward modification, and thus O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15(j) did not apply to keep child support from accruing. Trial court correctly imputed income to Read More

Spread the love

Gonzalez v. Crocket, S10A0452

Trial court did not err in clarifying that the “marital residence” described in the parties’ decree only described the marital home and the 5 acre tract it sat on, and not the surrounding 21.9 acre tract. Husband misplaced reliance on Court’s holding in Messaadi v. Messaadi, 282 Ga. 126, 646 S.E.2d 230 (2007). Court explains Read More

Spread the love
error: Content is protected !!