Baker v. Schrimsher
291 Ga. 489
| Ga. | 2012Background
- Husband and Wife divorced in 1998; settlement required Husband to refinance vehicle and mortgage debts within 60 days and hold Wife harmless from indebtedness.
- If Husband failed to refinance the vehicle, he must transfer ownership to Wife; if he vacated the marital home within 60 days, the home would be listed for sale.
- Husband failed to meet obligations; auto debt resulted in a 2002 default judgment against Wife; mortgage debt pursued in 2009.
- Wife filed contempt in 2009; Husband moved to dismiss arguing dormancy under OCGA § 9-12-60 and laches; trial court denied dismissal and held Husband in wilful contempt, ordering payment of $37,506.28.
- Husband challenged the contempt order on multiple grounds; appellate court affirmed, holding the dormancy statute does not apply to performance-based judgments and the indemnity provisions required payment regardless of possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dormancy statute applicability to contempt for performance | Wife seeks contempt; dormancy bars enforcement after ten years | Husband argues judgment dormant under OCGA § 9-12-60 and laches | Dormancy does not apply; decree required acts, not a money sum; contempt affirmed |
| Obligation to pay full indebtedness despite possession | Decree required Husband to pay and indemnify irrespective of possession | Return of vehicle shows compliance or decree modification | Husband liable for full indebtedness per indemnity terms; not a modification of the decree |
| Effect and scope of indemnity provisions | Wife had no obligation to mitigate; indemnity held Husband harmless | Indemnity provisions compel Husband to indemnify and hold Wife harmless against first/second mortgage and vehicle debt |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Parks, 190 Ga. 540 (1940) (dormancy limited to money judgments (not performance))
- Mathis v. Hegwood, 212 Ga. App. 335 (1994) (dormancy applies to money judgments; performance-based decrees exempt)
- Collier v. Bank of Tupelo, 190 Ga. 598 (1940) (dormancy does not apply to judgments enforcing acts or duties)
- Hunter v. Hunter, 289 Ga. 9 (2011) (trial court has broad discretion in contempt; standard of review)