Bishop v. Patton
288 Ga. 600
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Bishop pled guilty to malice murder of Nutt; he had gifted his house to his three Florida grandchildren three months before the murder.
- Bishop retained possession of the house after gifting it; he also listed trailer property for sale.
- Bishop and his son Marshall shared about $250,000 in nine joint Georgia bank accounts; Marshall withdrew all funds shortly after Bishop’s arrest.
- Plaintiffs sued for wrongful death and alleged fraudulent transfers to defeat recovery; they sought an interlocutory injunction to preserve assets.
- Trial court granted emergency TRO and then issued an interlocutory injunction barring transfers, encumbrances, and withdrawals related to the house, trailer, and joint accounts.
- Court of Appeals transferred the case to Georgia Supreme Court; the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, addressing the house and the bank accounts separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marshall's inclusion in the injunction was proper | Marshall, a non-party, should not be enjoined | Marshall acted in concert with Bishop; injunction valid | Partially proper; court limited to bank accounts and did not persist on house against Marshall. |
| Whether the injunction properly restrains joint bank account proceeds | Proceeds were fraudulent transfers; need to restrain | Injunction properly targets disposition of proceeds | Proper to restrain further disposition of proceeds pending final adjudication. |
| Whether the house transfer to grandchildren supported an injunction | House transfer was fraudulent and part of asset shielding | Insufficient badges of fraud; not substantially all assets; open disclosure | Abused discretion to include house; no substantial basis to freeze it. |
| Whether the court properly applied Georgia UFTA to the transfers | UFTA supports preventing transfers to hinder recovery | Not all badges show actual intent; need stronger proof | Bank account findings affirmed under UFTA; house findings reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kesler v. Veal, 257 Ga. 677, 362 S.E.2d 214 (1987) (fraudulent transfers may be scrutinized to preserve relief for wrongful death actions)
- Kennedy v. W.M. Sheppard Lumber Co., 261 Ga. 145, 401 S.E.2d 515 (1991) (interlocutory restraint of assets to satisfy potential judgment)
- Mitchell v. Hayden, Stone, Inc., 225 Ga. 711, 171 S.E.2d 280 (1969) (upheld injunction preventing disposition of assets to satisfy a judgment)
- Dortic v. Dugas, 52 Ga. 231 (1874) (early precedent on injunctions against disposition of property in fraud context)
- Owens v. Ink Wizard Tattoos, 272 Ga. 728, 533 S.E.2d 722 (2000) (remedial adequacy principle in equity when there is a fraud claim)