Logo
  • Meet Debbie
  • Services
    • General Information
    • Independent Custody Assessments
    • Litigation Support for Attorneys
    • Litigation Support for Clients
  • Updates/Blog
    • Case Law Updates
    • Blog
    • News
  • Contact

Sep 03 2020

August 2020 Georgia Family Law Case Law Updates

October 2019 Case Law Update March 2020

The Georgia Court of Appeals had another busy month in August 2020, now that deadlines have been reinstated. Yet, the Court only released three opinions relevant to our family law practices. None were custody related.

Also, please visit my Covid-19 Pandemic: Family Law Updates and Resources page for the latest in orders, notices and other resources relevant to our family law practices.


Related Family Law Cases Released in August 2020:

Alimony 
Angst v. Augustine, Case No. A20A1477, Georgia Court of Appeals, August 17, 2020.

Under the terms of the settlement incorporated into their divorce decree, Angst was obligated to pay a specified amount of alimony to Augustine for 120 months. The parties also expressly reserved the right to seek modification of the alimony obligation in accordance with O.C.G.A. §19-6-19.  In general, a specified amount of alimony payable for a specific period of time, with no other limitations, is lump-sum alimony. Lump-sum alimony is non-modifiable. Conversely, if the total amount of the alimony obligation cannot be determined because of a contingency such as remarriage or death, it is considered periodic alimony, which may be modified. Accordingly, in the instant case, since the parties reserved the right to modify the alimony, the total alimony obligation is uncertain, and therefore should be treated as periodic alimony subject to modification.

Expert Witnesses // Spoliation 
Stern et al. v. Pettis et al., Case No. A20A1261, Georgia Court of Appeals, August 20, 2020.

The party seeking to introduce expert testimony has the burden of establishing admissibility in accordance with O.C.G.A. §24-7-702. The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on this evidentiary question, but must consider the expert’s qualifications, as well as the reliability and relevance of the testimony. Additionally, a party may be subject to sanctions for destroying, or failing to preserve evidence relevant to the litigation. This duty to preserve evidence arises once the party knows, or reasonably should know, that litigation is being contemplated. Sanctions may include a rebuttable presumption that the missing evidence would have been harmful to the spoliator.

LESSONS TO LEARN FROM THIS CASE:

We have all seen the high conflict litigants who find themselves caught in the revolving door to the courthouse. It seems that there is always issues with custody, visitation, child support and alimony. Advise these clients to be pack rats. They should keep their financial records and any records pertaining to the children at least until the issues can no longer be raised in court. Otherwise, if a trial court finds that your client reasonably should have known that the missing documents would be relevant in the litigation, shredding those records can be fatal to his or her case.

Send a non-spoliation notice/letter to the opposing party or counsel as soon as you become involved in the case. Demand that they preserve all files, both physical and electronic, including but not limited to specified financial records, text messages, e-mails, social media postings/direct messages, medical records, school records, surveillance reports, computer hard drives and audio and/or visual recordings.

Don’t forget about these, and other details. For support in building a strong case, check out my Litigation Support for Attorneys page. And, let’s talk!

Termination of Parental Rights
In the Interest of L.B., a child, Case No. A20A0851, Georgia Court of Appeals, August 27, 2020.

Under O.C.G.A. §15-11-310(a)(5), parental rights may be terminated if a child is, and will likely continue to be dependent due to improper parental care or control, despite the parent’s reasonable efforts to remedy the situation. Under these circumstances, if the Court finds that returning the child to the parent would be harmful to the child, then terminating parental rights is not error. In the instant case, because the mother’s unresolved mental health issues were the primary cause of the child’s dependency, the trial court did not err in finding that the dependency is likely to continue, and that terminating the mother’s parental rights was appropriate.

Share this:
  • Share via LinkedIn
  • Share via Twitter
  • Share via Facebook
  • Share via Email
  • Share via WhatsApp

Written by Debra Gold · Categorized: Case Law Updates, Featured

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Categories

  • Blog
  • Case Law Updates
  • Featured
  • News

Featured Blog Post

December 2022 Georgia Family Law Updates

November 2022 Georgia Custody/Family Law Updates

Barcelona Spain Joint Family Law Conference and Networking Exchange

September/October 2022 Custody/Family Law Updates

August 2022 Georgia Custody/Family Law Case Updates

Testimonials

Search

Make the Smart Move

Contact me today to learn how I can add value to your custody case.

Phone: (404) 460-9104 | Email: info@mdgcustodyconsulting.com

These materials have been prepared by M. Debra Gold for general informational purposes only. Nothing in this website should be relied upon, or taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Instead, you should consult with an attorney who can advise you as to your particular circumstances. The furnishing of this information, and your receipt thereof, do not constitute or create an attorney client relationship with M. Debra Gold. Although comments and feedback are welcome, do not e-mail or otherwise send confidential information to M. Debra Gold without prior authorization, as confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.

© Copyright 2022 M. Debra Gold - mdg Custody Consulting ~ All rights reserved | Legal Notices | Privacy Policy | Designed by Gorgeous Geek