Bulat v. Bulat

Supreme Court of Georgia

Bulat v. Bulat

626 S.E.2d 504, 280 Ga. 310, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 437, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 120

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 13, 2006

DocketS05F1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 626 S.E.2d 504 (Bulat v. Bulat) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bulat v. Bulat, 626 S.E.2d 504, 280 Ga. 310, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 437, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 120 (Ga. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

SEARS, Chief Justice.

The appellant, Joseph Bulat, appeals from the trial court’s award of attorney fees to the appellee, Starla Bulat.¹ Mr. Bulat contends that the trial court’s award was not based on competent, admissible evidence, and therefore should be reversed. We disagree.

The record shows that the parties agreed to an informal procedure for determining the attorney fees issue, and that, pursuant to that procedure, the parties agreed that Ms. Bulat would support her request for fees with an itemized bill from her attorney. Mr. Bulat voiced no objection to that procedure, and thus is barred from objecting to the itemized bill on appeal. Moreover, a trial court may award attorney fees under OCGA § 19-6-2 based on the knowledge of the financial circumstances of the parties that it has acquired during the divorce proceedings² and based on its ability to “plac[e] a value on [311]*311legal services rendered by an attorney in a divorce action.”³ Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s award of attorney fees.

Decided February 13, 2006 Reconsideration denied March 13, 2006. McKenney & Froelich, David M. Kupsky, for appellant. Sandra H. Taylor, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hines, J., who concurs in the judgment only.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SEARS, Chief Justice.

The appellant, Joseph Bulat, appeals from the trial court’s award of attorney fees to the appellee, Starla Bulat.¹ Mr. Bulat contends that the trial court’s award was not based on competent, admissible evidence, and therefore should be reversed. We disagree.

The record shows that the parties agreed to an informal procedure for determining the attorney fees issue, and that, pursuant to that procedure, the parties agreed that Ms. Bulat would support her request for fees with an itemized bill from her attorney. Mr. Bulat voiced no objection to that procedure, and thus is barred from objecting to the itemized bill on appeal. Moreover, a trial court may award attorney fees under OCGA § 19-6-2 based on the knowledge of the financial circumstances of the parties that it has acquired during the divorce proceedings² and based on its ability to “plac[e] a value on [311]*311legal services rendered by an attorney in a divorce action.”³ Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s award of attorney fees.

Decided February 13, 2006 Reconsideration denied March 13, 2006. McKenney & Froelich, David M. Kupsky, for appellant. Sandra H. Taylor, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hines, J., who concurs in the judgment only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

626 S.E.2d 504, 280 Ga. 310, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 437, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bulat-v-bulat-ga-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack