Rollins v. Rollins  

2017 Ga. LEXIS 43

February 6, 2017

As part of the parties’ divorce, they agreed to submit the division of furniture to arbitration. Following arbitration, Mr. Rollins filed for contempt against Ms. Rollins, as many of the items awarded to him had gone missing. The court found her in contempt and ordered her to show cause as to why she should not be incarcerated. Ms. Rollins appealed the order, both directly, and through a discretionary application for review. Her discretionary application was denied. Subsequently, at the show-cause hearing, the court entered a final order on contempt, ordering Ms. Rollins to pay for the missing property as well as fining her for 34 instances of contempt. Ms. Rollins appealed this order as well.

In ruling on the appeal that arose from the second order on contempt, the Supreme Court found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the second order and vacated the same. Because Ms. Rollins’ initial discretionary application was denied and her direct appeal was improper, the trial court determined that it had retained jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that even when an appeal is improper, the notice of appeal acts as supersedeas until such time as the appellate court dismisses the appeal.

Stanford v. Pogue

2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 13

January 20, 2017

Following a 2009 legitimation and custody action, the parties entered into a consent order on contempt in 2015, modifying father’s visitation. Father subsequently filed a motion for contempt in 2016, for mother’s failure to comply with the consent order. After a hearing on contempt, the trial court modified visitation such that father picked the child up from school, rather than the mother. The trial court further ordered the mother jailed for 20 days “in order to purge herself of her willful contempt.”

Mother appealed arguing (1) that the trial court lacked authority to modifiy visitation within a year of the consent order and without further findings of fact, and (2) that the court erred in imposing unconditional incarceration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court as to both.

Regarding the modification of visitation, the Court referred to O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(b), which authorizes the court to modify visitation in a contempt action. The Court further found that because a contempt proceeding is “ancillary to a pending case,” no findings of fact were required.

As to the order of incarceration for a period of 20 days, the Court determined that though the trial court had not specified whether it was criminal or civil, the intent of the order made clear that it was penal and therefore criminal. As 20 days is the maximum period allowed and conditions for incarceration are only required when the incarceration is civil in nature, the trial court did not err. While the words “to purge herself of her willful contempt,” lend themselves to civil contempt, the inclusion of the same did not necessarily render the contempt civil. Finally, the Court rejected that argument that Easley required that the penalty for violating visitation provisions must be civil contempt.

Albritton v. Kopp

2017 Ga. LEXIS 51

February 6, 2017

The settlement agreement of the parties included standard language as to the duration of child support with the addition of the sentence, “[t]his is conditional upon the child being enrolled or registered as a full-time high school student for the regular high school year.” Due to the child’s learning disabilities, she returned to high school for a 5^th year to complete necessary credits for graduation. The father ceased paying child support, contending that the daughter was not enrolled in sufficient courses to be a “full-time” student. The mother filed for contempt.

The trial court declined to find the father in contempt, determining that the child was not enrolled “full-time.” The mother appealed and the Supreme Court reversed.

Reviewing the case de novo, the Court pointed out that the Settlement Agreement did not define the term full-time student. The Court noted that it had in previous cases defined “full-time” student to mean “continuous attendance during the normal school year.” The Court found that in defining the term to mean seven instructional segments per day, the trial court had in effect modified the settlement agreement, rather than simply clarifying it. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the trial court.