Fedina v. Larichev
322 Ga. App. 76
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Fedina and Larichev married in 2008; condo purchased with title in Fedina's name due to Larichev's credit, with Fedina executing a promissory note and security deed listing Fedina as borrower and Larichev as lender.
- Divorce finalized January 14, 2009; on the divorce day Fedina provided Larichev with a quitclaim deed to the condo.
- Fedina sued in 2010 seeking title to the condo, cancellation of the security deed and promissory note, an accounting, and repayment of funds; Larichev counterclaimed for breach of contract and conversion.
- A lis pendens was filed on the condo; Fedina sought access to Larichev's safe deposit box via an adverse claim bond, which the court limited to an inventory after an emergency hearing.
- GDHS records regarding Larichev were sealed in 2011; Fedina requested post-judgment unsealing and an accounting of the safe deposit box, which the trial court denied.
- Bench trial in 2011 found in favor of Larichev on Fedina’s claims and Larichev’s counterclaims, but awarded $0 damages; Fedina appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether promissory note cancellation was proper | Fedina asserts the note is a sham and should be cancelled. | Larichev contends Fedina had unclean hands and the note is enforceable. | Denied; court upheld no cancellation due to Fedina's unclean hands. |
| Whether Fedina's loan repayment claim is barred by res judicata | Fedina argues she loaned money pre-marriage that Larichev owes. | Larichev contends the claim was resolved or released by the divorce settlement. | Barred by res judicata given the divorce settlement incorporating a broad release of debts. |
| Whether the GDHS records should be unsealed post-judgment | Fedina seeks access to sealed GDHS records as part of post-judgment relief. | Fedina waived challenge by not raising the issue at trial; sealing was permissible. | Waived; no abuse of discretion in denying unsealing. |
| Whether the safe deposit box inventory should be filed post-trial | Fedina seeks an order compelling inventory of box contents. | Not raised at trial; waiver applies. | Waived; no error in denial. |
| Whether attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14(b) were appropriate | Fedina improperly conducted the proceedings; sanctions warranted. | Fees were justified due to sanctionable conduct and improper actions by Fedina. | Vacated in part for lack of apportionment; remanded for proper factfinding on the fee amount. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodson v. Ford, 290 Ga. 662 (Ga. 2012) (res judicata and contract interpretation guidance cited in context of divorce settlement)
- Hampton Island, LLC v. HAOP, LLC, 306 Ga. App. 542 (Ga. App. 2010) (uniform sealing of records requires a hearing)
- Williams v. Williams, 255 Ga. 264 (Ga. 1985) (appellate procedure and waiver principles)
- Lovell v. Ga. Trust Bank, 318 Ga. App. 860 (Ga. App. 2012) (promissory note is unconditional contract; parol evidence cannot add conditions)
- Ga. Neurology & Rehabilitation, P.C. v. Hiller, 310 Ga. App. 202 (Ga. App. 2011) (parol evidence and contract terms on the face of the note)
- Prince v. Prince, 147 Ga. App. 686 (Ga. App. 1978) (res judicata impact in divorce settlements)