Klardie v. Klardie

Supreme Court of Georgia

Klardie v. Klardie

697 S.E.2d 207, 287 Ga. 499, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 2175, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 509

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 5, 2010

DocketS10F0451

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 697 S.E.2d 207 (Klardie v. Klardie) 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

Klardie v. Klardie, 697 S.E.2d 207, 287 Ga. 499, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 2175, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 509 (Ga. 2010).

Pincite

Opinions

HINES, Justice.

Christopher Vernon Klardie (“husband”) appeals the final judgment and decree of divorce (“decree”) from Celia Alice Klardie (“wife”).¹ He claims error in the trial court’s “failing to apply judicial estoppel” in regard to the wife’s claim to her retirement funds and in the trial court’s directive that he pay a portion of the wife’s attorney fees. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The parties were married in May of 2000, and their only child, a son, was born in 2004. They separated in April of 2008, and the decree was entered on June 9, 2009. The decree incorporated the parties’ parenting plan which addressed the issues of custody and visitation. The trial court expressly stated in the decree: the parties agreed that the wife had been the primary breadwinner; the husband viewed himself as a stay-at-home parent, although it was clear that this was not by agreement of the parties; the husband had a bachelor’s degree; even though the husband had sustained periods of employment, most successfully when working for his father, his failure to maintain employment throughout the marriage led to its demise; and the husband failed to follow up on job opportunities or pursue employment opportunities outside of Georgia. The trial court imputed $2,000 per month of income to the husband based on his historical income.

The trial court also found that the wife earned $7,093 per month and her financial affidavit included amounts spent for health care insurance and child care. Applying its findings to the child support guidelines, the trial court ordered the husband to pay $450 per month in child support. It ordered the wife to maintain health insurance on the son so long as it was available to her, and each party was to pay one-half of the child’s uncovered healthcare expenses. It divided the parties’ property, including the wife’s tax deferred accounts and split the accounts equally. The court also made a determination, following an evidentiary hearing, that the husband was in wilful contempt on his child support obligations under the temporary order and that he owed $1,700 in child support arrearages. In addition, the court denied the husband’s request for alimony, stating that the denial was in consideration of the husband’s age, education, and the condition of the parties; it expressly found that the alimony request was premised on the husband’s contention that [500]*500his lack of employment and his being a stay-at-home parent was by agreement with his wife and that the evidence contradicted such assertion.

1. Although not enumerated as error, as a threshold matter the husband inexplicably maintains that “because there were no evidentiary hearings in this matter, the [t]rial [c]ourt’s [o]rder (which contains findings of fact) is error as a matter of law.” But, the record clearly reveals that the trial court held three hearings in regard to the issues of the divorce, two of which were plainly evidentiary. In fact, in his notice of appeal, the husband states that “[t]he transcript from two days of testimony and one day of ruling are being prepared and will be filed for inclusion with the record on appeal.”²

2. The husband contends that the wife waived any claim to her retirement funds and that the trial court should have applied judicial estoppel to such claim because the wife did not disclose these funds in her bankruptcy case. However, the contention is unavailing.

The wife acknowledges that in 2008, she filed for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which subsequently was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Both filings were admitted into evidence at the hearing on April 15, 2009; however, it appears that they were not then made a part of the record in the case. On August 13, 2009, the husband filed in the trial court a “Notice of Amending Record for Purposes of Appeal.” To that notice, he appended an alleged copy of his wife’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. This uncertified copy is the only documentation of any bankruptcy proceeding in the record on appeal, and its filing occurred subsequent to entry of the decree.

Pretermitting the question of the state of the appellate record in regard to the wife’s bankruptcy filings, judicial estoppel was not warranted as the husband urges.

The federal doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a party from asserting a position in one judicial proceeding after having successfully asserted a contrary position in a prior proceeding. It is most commonly invoked to prevent bankruptcy debtors from concealing a possible cause of action, asserting the claim following the discharge of the bankruptcy and excluding resources from the bankruptcy estate that might have otherwise satisfied creditors. The purpose of judicial estoppel is to protect the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing [501]*501positions according to the exigencies of the moment. This equitable doctrine is invoked by a court at its discretion, and intended to prevent abuse of the judicial process. The circumstances under which it is appropriate are not reduced to any general formula or rule.

Benton v. Benton, 280 Ga. 468, 469 (629 SE2d 204) (2006) (citations omitted). Furthermore, “a court should be hesitant to apply federal judicial estoppel to defeat the important rights of a spouse to potential support and an equitable share of marital property.” Id. at 471.

Here, the husband has failed to show that the wife’s retirement accounts were not excludable or exempt from the bankruptcy estate. See 11 USC § 522 (d) (12);³ In re Chilton, 426 B.R. 612 (2010). See also OCGA § 44-13-100 (a) (2.1).⁴

Nor has he demonstrated that the wife misled or manipulated [502]*502the bankruptcy court so as to accrue any benefit for herself.⁵ Benton v. Benton, supra at 471. Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be found that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel to defeat the wife’s claim to any share of her retirement accounts. Id.

3. There is likewise no merit to the husband’s complaint regarding the award of attorney fees to the wife. The record does not support his claim that the trial court made the award because the court “thought it was improper for a man to seek alimony and that the case should have settled.”⁶ Indeed, as has been noted, in the decree the trial court specifically set forth that in denying alimony, it considered the conditions of the parties and that “rehabilitative” alimony to the husband was not warranted because the request was premised on the husband’s less-than-credible claim that the wife had agreed with his lack of employment and his being a stay-at-home parent.

As to the award of fees in favor of the wife, the trial court expressly considered the respective fiscal circumstances of the parties, as it was obligated to do. OCGA § 19-6-2 (a) (l).⁷ The court made financially relevant findings, express and implicit, that the [503]

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

HINES, Justice.

Christopher Vernon Klardie (“husband”) appeals the final judgment and decree of divorce (“decree”) from Celia Alice Klardie (“wife”).¹ He claims error in the trial court’s “failing to apply judicial estoppel” in regard to the wife’s claim to her retirement funds and in the trial court’s directive that he pay a portion of the wife’s attorney fees. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The parties were married in May of 2000, and their only child, a son, was born in 2004. They separated in April of 2008, and the decree was entered on June 9, 2009. The decree incorporated the parties’ parenting plan which addressed the issues of custody and visitation. The trial court expressly stated in the decree: the parties agreed that the wife had been the primary breadwinner; the husband viewed himself as a stay-at-home parent, although it was clear that this was not by agreement of the parties; the husband had a bachelor’s degree; even though the husband had sustained periods of employment, most successfully when working for his father, his failure to maintain employment throughout the marriage led to its demise; and the husband failed to follow up on job opportunities or pursue employment opportunities outside of Georgia. The trial court imputed $2,000 per month of income to the husband based on his historical income.

The trial court also found that the wife earned $7,093 per month and her financial affidavit included amounts spent for health care insurance and child care. Applying its findings to the child support guidelines, the trial court ordered the husband to pay $450 per month in child support. It ordered the wife to maintain health insurance on the son so long as it was available to her, and each party was to pay one-half of the child’s uncovered healthcare expenses. It divided the parties’ property, including the wife’s tax deferred accounts and split the accounts equally. The court also made a determination, following an evidentiary hearing, that the husband was in wilful contempt on his child support obligations under the temporary order and that he owed $1,700 in child support arrearages. In addition, the court denied the husband’s request for alimony, stating that the denial was in consideration of the husband’s age, education, and the condition of the parties; it expressly found that the alimony request was premised on the husband’s contention that [500]*500his lack of employment and his being a stay-at-home parent was by agreement with his wife and that the evidence contradicted such assertion.

1. Although not enumerated as error, as a threshold matter the husband inexplicably maintains that “because there were no evidentiary hearings in this matter, the [t]rial [c]ourt’s [o]rder (which contains findings of fact) is error as a matter of law.” But, the record clearly reveals that the trial court held three hearings in regard to the issues of the divorce, two of which were plainly evidentiary. In fact, in his notice of appeal, the husband states that “[t]he transcript from two days of testimony and one day of ruling are being prepared and will be filed for inclusion with the record on appeal.”²

2. The husband contends that the wife waived any claim to her retirement funds and that the trial court should have applied judicial estoppel to such claim because the wife did not disclose these funds in her bankruptcy case. However, the contention is unavailing.

The wife acknowledges that in 2008, she filed for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which subsequently was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Both filings were admitted into evidence at the hearing on April 15, 2009; however, it appears that they were not then made a part of the record in the case. On August 13, 2009, the husband filed in the trial court a “Notice of Amending Record for Purposes of Appeal.” To that notice, he appended an alleged copy of his wife’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. This uncertified copy is the only documentation of any bankruptcy proceeding in the record on appeal, and its filing occurred subsequent to entry of the decree.

Pretermitting the question of the state of the appellate record in regard to the wife’s bankruptcy filings, judicial estoppel was not warranted as the husband urges.

The federal doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a party from asserting a position in one judicial proceeding after having successfully asserted a contrary position in a prior proceeding. It is most commonly invoked to prevent bankruptcy debtors from concealing a possible cause of action, asserting the claim following the discharge of the bankruptcy and excluding resources from the bankruptcy estate that might have otherwise satisfied creditors. The purpose of judicial estoppel is to protect the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing [501]*501positions according to the exigencies of the moment. This equitable doctrine is invoked by a court at its discretion, and intended to prevent abuse of the judicial process. The circumstances under which it is appropriate are not reduced to any general formula or rule.

Benton v. Benton, 280 Ga. 468, 469 (629 SE2d 204) (2006) (citations omitted). Furthermore, “a court should be hesitant to apply federal judicial estoppel to defeat the important rights of a spouse to potential support and an equitable share of marital property.” Id. at 471.

Here, the husband has failed to show that the wife’s retirement accounts were not excludable or exempt from the bankruptcy estate. See 11 USC § 522 (d) (12);³ In re Chilton, 426 B.R. 612 (2010). See also OCGA § 44-13-100 (a) (2.1).⁴

Nor has he demonstrated that the wife misled or manipulated [502]*502the bankruptcy court so as to accrue any benefit for herself.⁵ Benton v. Benton, supra at 471. Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be found that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel to defeat the wife’s claim to any share of her retirement accounts. Id.

3. There is likewise no merit to the husband’s complaint regarding the award of attorney fees to the wife. The record does not support his claim that the trial court made the award because the court “thought it was improper for a man to seek alimony and that the case should have settled.”⁶ Indeed, as has been noted, in the decree the trial court specifically set forth that in denying alimony, it considered the conditions of the parties and that “rehabilitative” alimony to the husband was not warranted because the request was premised on the husband’s less-than-credible claim that the wife had agreed with his lack of employment and his being a stay-at-home parent.

As to the award of fees in favor of the wife, the trial court expressly considered the respective fiscal circumstances of the parties, as it was obligated to do. OCGA § 19-6-2 (a) (l).⁷ The court made financially relevant findings, express and implicit, that the [503]*503husband was underemployed and/or unemployed by his own doing and in direct contravention of the wishes of his wife, and that the husband, because of his relative youth, college education, and good physical health, was clearly capable of earning more income. In certain domestic cases, earning capacity is an appropriate means to determine an award of attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 19-6-2. Duncan v. Duncan, 262 Ga. 872, 873 (1) (426 SE2d 857) (1993). This is one of those cases.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Melton and Nahmias, JJ., who concur in part and dissent in part.

⁴

OCGA § 44-13-100 (a) states:

In lieu of the exemption provided in Code Section 44-13-1, any debtor who is a natural person may exempt, pursuant to this article, for purposes of bankruptcy, the following property:

(1) The debtor’s aggregate interest, not to exceed $10,000.00 in value, in real property or personal property that the debtor or a dependent of the debtor uses as a residence, in a cooperative that owns property that the debtor or a dependent of the debtor uses as a residence, or in a burial plot for the debtor or a dependent of the debtor. In the event title to property used for the exemption provided under this paragraph is in one of two spouses who is a debtor, the amount of the exemption hereunder shall be $20,000.00;

(2) The debtor’s right to receive:

(A) A social security benefit, unemployment compensation, or a local public assistance benefit;

(B) A veteran’s benefit;

(C) A disability, illness, or unemployment benefit;

(D) Alimony, support, or separate maintenance, to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor;

(E) A payment under a pension, annuity, or similar plan or contract on account of illness, disability, death, age, or length of service, to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor; and

(F) A payment from an individual retirement account within the meaning of Title 26 U.S.C. Section 408 to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor;

(2.1) The debtor’s aggregate interest in any funds or property held on behalf of the debtor, and not yet distributed to the debtor, under any retirement or pension [502]*502plan or system:

(A) Which is: (i) maintained for public officers or employees or both by the State of Georgia or a political subdivision of the State of Georgia or both; and (ii) financially supported in whole or in part by public funds of the State of Georgia or a political subdivision of the State of Georgia or both;

(B) Which is: (i) maintained by a nonprofit corporation which is qualified as an exempt organization under Code Section 48-7-25 for its officers or employees or both; and (ii) financially supported in whole or in part by funds of the nonprofit corporation;

(C) To the extent permitted by the bankruptcy laws of the United States similar benefits from the private sector of such debtor shall be entitled to the same treatment as those specified in subparagraphs (A) and

(B) of this paragraph,

provided that the exempt or nonexempt status of periodic payments from such a retirement or pension plan or system shall be as provided under subparagraph (E) of paragraph (2) of this subsection; or

(D) An individual retirement account within the meaning of Title 26 U.S.C. Section 408;

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 S.E.2d 207, 287 Ga. 499, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 2175, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klardie-v-klardie-ga-2010.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack