A record of success in the highest court in Georgia.

Our firm has argued many notable cases before the Georgia Supreme Court. Our Supreme Court decisions have resulted in several precedent-setting decisions in the arena of Georgia Family Law, including but not limited to those highlighted below. (We have also handled numerous matters in the Georgia Court of Appeals – cases ranging from insurance death benefits for surviving spouses to spousal immunity in civil actions).

Wright v. Wright, 277 Ga. 133

A landmark case in the realm of equitable distribution, the wife initiated this action challenging the trial court’s division of the parties’ property as inequitable. The parties were married in 1985, no children were born as a result, and each entered the marriage with separate assets and debts. Wife alleged the court erred in dividing husband’s mortgaged house and his inheritance money used to begin the family business. The Supreme Court held what items of property constitute a marital or non-marital asset is a question of law for the court and whether a particular item of property actually constitutes marital or non-marital asset is a question of fact for the trier of fact to determine within its broad discretion. Further, the Court restated the purpose of the doctrine of equitable distribution is to divide property accumulated during the marriage fairly based on each parties interest therein.

Godfrey v. Godfrey, 239 Ga. 707

In this precedent setting case, the father appealed a change of child custody. The trial court granted father’s change in custody after he presented sufficient evidence that mother was living with a married man in her home following the divorce and said relationship inhibited his visitation rights on several occasions. The trial court held, mother had created a substantial change which affected the welfare of the child and warranted a change of custody by living with a man in her home. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, reiterating the standard that ‘reasonable evidence’ in the record to support the decision made by the lower court, must prevail as a final judgment and will be affirmed on appeal because the decision rests within the trial court’s broad discretion.

Keck v. Harris, 277 Ga. 667

Mr. Keck brought this suit challenging the constitutionality of Georgia’s Child Support Guidelines. Specifically, arguing that Georgia’s Child Support Guidelines were unconstitutional as a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution because Georgia’s system of reviewing the guidelines every four years is contrary to federal law. The court held that Georgia’s failure to review the guidelines in the exact manner specified by the State Legislature “does not do major damage to that federal interest” and therefore the guidelines do not violate the Supremacy Clause.

Scott v. Scott, 276 Ga. 372

Another precedent-setting case, representing the wife who sought an appeal as to whether the court’s previous decisions created an enforceable automatic custody change provision. The Scott’s were divorced in 2001 and the parties were granted joint custody with Ms. Scott designated the primary physical custodian. The divorce decree mandated that should Ms. Scott move out of Cobb County, Georgia, her actions would be sufficient to establish a material change in circumstances and primary physical custody of the minor child would automatically revert to Mr. Scott. It was argued that such a change would not be in the best interest of the child.

The Supreme Court held that material changes in circumstances may warrant a change in custody but the court must determine the best interest of the child in light of those changed circumstances on a case by case basis. While the Supreme Court refused to find all self-executing changes in custody illegal, it did recognize our argument that the current automatic custody change may not be within the best interests of the child and should therefore be invalid to allow the court the flexibility to determine the best interests of the child in the case at hand.

In Re: R.L.L. and J.M.L., 258 Ga. 628

In this groundbreaking grandparent’s rights case, representing the maternal grandmother in this custody dispute against the minor children’s biological father, father challenged the court’s grant of two-year temporary custody to the grandmother alleging the court had applied the wrong standard, “best interests of the child” standard, rather than the correct “unfitness of the parent” standard. Georgia law requires the use of the “unfitness of the parent” standard in custody disputes arising between “a natural parent and a third party.” Conversely, in actions between two natural parents, the court may employ the “best interests of the child standard.” The Supreme Court held it was unclear which standard the trial court had employed and remanded the case for reconsideration under the Blackburn standard.

Brewer v. Brewer, 249 Ga. 517

In this divorce appeal, representing the husband in this action challenging the trial court’s decision alleging the court erroneously admitted, and/or denied, certain witness testimony from trial. The trial judge refused to allow wife’s paramour to be called as a witness, refused to admit testimony of the husband’s private investigator, refused another witness’ testimony because husband failed to include the witness on his interrogatory responses and refused to allow husband to testify and explain funds he had used during the divorce litigation, in attempts to challenge whether he was in contempt of the court’s order that he not dissipate the assets of his estate during the divorce litigation. The Supreme Court agreed with husband’s arguments and reversed the trial court’s ruling.

Taylor v. Taylor, 282 Ga. 113

This appeal was brought by the husband challenging the trial court’s total denial of his visitation rights based on a lack of supporting evidence. Our firm represented the wife throughout her divorce action and subsequent appeal. The parties were married in 2001 and husband adopted wife’s daughter. Upon divorcing in 2005, wife sought to have husband’s parental rights terminated. The trial court awarded wife full custody of the minor child, denied husband all visitation and required no payments of child support, yet could not terminate husband’s parental rights. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision finding sufficient evidence in the record to support existence of exceptional circumstances allowing the trial court to deny husband any visitation. Further, the Supreme Court reiterated the standard of broad discretion granted to trial courts when determining the best interest of a child.