Georgia Supreme Court Wrapup

Decisions of interest to this blog from September 24:

Hawthorn Suites Golf Resorts, LLC v. Feneck: Hawthorn Suites lost its appeal of the trial court's dismissal of its lawsuit against Dana Feneck on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Basically, forum non conveniens is the principal that the trial should be help where it is most convenient for the trial court, witnesses, and parties. Feneck had been hired by Hawthorn Suites to manage a property in Louisiana and eventually moved there. The trial court granted Feneck motion that trial should be in Louisiana, not Georgia. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. Full Opinion

Alejandro v. Alejandro: This was a divorce action where both parties committed adultery, but the trial court found the cause of the dissolution of the marriage was the husband's return to another state for work purposes. Thus, it was proper for the Court to award the wife with sole custody of the children, as that was in their best interests. Since adultery was not the cause of the dissolution of the marriage, making the husband responsible for certain debts does not violate Georgia law that says alimony should not be awarded to a party whose adultery caused a divorce. Full Opinion

Hammond v. Hammond: Wife appeals the trial court's award of custody to Husband and the calculation of child support obligations. As to the award of custody, the trial court found it was in the best interests of the children to allow them to stay with the father because they would not have to change school districts. The trial court has broad discretion in awarding custody, and the Supreme Court "will not interefere with any such decision absent a clear abuse of discretion." It is "not an abuse of discretion if there is any evidence" to support the decision. As to the child support obligation, the wife's income was improperly calculated because it included child support payments from a previous relationship. Full Opinion

Scarborough v. Scarborough: In the absence of a provision in the parties' settlement agreement and divorce decree incorporating the settlement agreement, a non-custodial parent is entitled to a credit against his or her child support obligation for social security retirement benefits which become payable directly to his or her children at some time following the execution of the settlement agreement. The Court cited two early 1960s cases addressing similar issues, and said in effect that the Social Security disability payments made to the dependent child are a substitute for income and that retirement benefits were earned in part by the parent. The payments can only be used as an off-set if the payments were not already being made at the time of the agreement and divorce decree or if there is not otherwise a provision that addresses future retirement benefits in the settlement agreement or divorce decree. Full Opinion