Reese v. Grant

596 S.E.2d 139, 277 Ga. 799, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 1515, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 329
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 27, 2004
DocketS04A0870
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 596 S.E.2d 139 (Reese v. Grant) 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
Reese v. Grant, 596 S.E.2d 139, 277 Ga. 799, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 1515, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 329 (Ga. 2004).

Opinion

Thompson, Justice.

Appellee Hal Grant sued his former wife, appellant Tanya Grant Reese, alleging that she was in wilful contempt of an indemnification provision of the settlement agreement incorporated into their final judgment and decree of divorce. Although the trial court refused to find Reese in contempt, it nonetheless ordered her to pay attorney fees incurred by Grant.

The order is silent as to whether attorney fees were awarded pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14 because the trial court believed that Grant was forced to defend against groundless and frivolous litigation, 1 or whether the award was made under OCGA § 19-6-2 (a) which permits attorney fees in a domestic relations action for contempt of court involving property division. In either event, the order is legally insufficient because the trial court failed to set forth findings of fact to support an award under OCGA § 9-15-14 (see Cotting v. Cotting, 261 Ga. App. 370 (582 SE2d 527) (2003)), and did not include a consideration of the financial circumstances of the parties as is required under OCGA § 19-6-2 (a) (1). Compare Carson v. Carson, 277 Ga. 335 (588 SE2d 735) (2003). Therefore, we vacate the award and remand for further clarification of the trial court’s intent and the basis for its ruling.

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.

All the Justices concur. *800 Decided April 27, 2004. Sean A. Black, for appellant. Barry L. Fitzpatrick, for appellee.
1

Even though Grant did not prevail in his attempt to have Reese held in contempt, he is not necessarily precluded from recovering attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14. Betallic, Inc. v. Deavours, 263 Ga. 796 (439 SE2d 643) (1994).

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

Related

Ehsan Razavi v. Arif Merchant
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2014
Razavi v. Merchant
765 S.E.2d 479 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2014)
Hearn v. DOLLAR RENT a CAR, INC.
726 S.E.2d 661 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012)
Dan J. Sheehan Co. v. Fairlawn on Jones Homeowners' Ass'n
720 S.E.2d 259 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011)
Klardie v. Klardie
697 S.E.2d 207 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2010)
Robinson v. Glass
691 S.E.2d 620 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)
Hall v. Monroe County
611 S.E.2d 120 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2005)
Mixon v. Mixon
603 S.E.2d 287 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
596 S.E.2d 139, 277 Ga. 799, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 1515, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reese-v-grant-ga-2004.