Griggs v. Griggs

392 S.E.2d 11, 260 Ga. 249
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 8, 1990
DocketS90A0782
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 392 S.E.2d 11 (Griggs v. Griggs) 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
Griggs v. Griggs, 392 S.E.2d 11, 260 Ga. 249 (Ga. 1990).

Opinion

Weltner, Justice.

In a divorce action, a jury awarded to the wife the marital residence, personal property, two automobiles, and funds in various accounts. The husband was awarded two automobiles, personal property, and all accounts in his name. The trial court granted the husband’s motion for a new trial as to equitable division of the marital residence only. We granted the wife’s application for discretionary appeal to determine the appropriateness of this order.

1. In Stone v. Stone, 258 Ga. 716 (373 SE2d 627) (1988), we analyzed the trial court’s amendment of a jury verdict in light of OCGA § 9-12-7, as follows:

OCGA § 9-12-7 provides, in part:

“[A]fter a verdict has been received and recorded and the [250]*250jury has been dispersed, it may not be amended in matter of substance either by what the jurors say they intended to find or otherwise.”
Decided June 8, 1990. Bruce A. Wilson, for appellant. Joyner & Joyner, Gail Tusan Joyner, for appellee.
We must assume that the allocation of resources, under the scheme adopted by the jury in its verdict, was based upon the jury’s expectation that no party would be required to pay litigation costs incurred by the other party. The trial court’s award of a substantial sum in litigation expenses to the wife worked a change “in matter of substance” of the jury’s allocation of resources between the parties. Accordingly, the case must be remanded for a new trial. [Id. at 717.]

2. Applying the reasoning of Stone, supra, we hold that the trial court should not have granted a new trial on a sole issue of equitable division. The motion must be granted or denied.1 If it is granted, all issues of the allocation of economic resources must be determined de novo.

Judgment reversed and case remanded for appropriate order on the motion for new trial.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Smelser v. Smelser
623 S.E.2d 480 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2005)
Payson v. Payson
552 S.E.2d 839 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
392 S.E.2d 11, 260 Ga. 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griggs-v-griggs-ga-1990.