Jones-Shaw v. Shaw
291 Ga. 252
Ga.2012Background
- Wife Felicia Jones-Shaw and Husband James W. Shaw, Jr. were married on July 7, 2009 and later separated in late 2010; the petition centered on equitable division of Georgia Tarheel Sports, Inc. (GTS).
- GTS is a closely-held non-profit corporation started by Husband about nine years before the marriage and was not incorporated at that time.
- The parties had no children and kept their finances separate.
- The final decree found Wife failed to prove GTS was subject to equitable division or that any appreciation was due to her efforts, and denied attorney fees to both sides.
- The bench trial on August 8, 2011 had no expert witnesses; there was insufficient evidence to determine GTS’s value at the marriage or at divorce, and Husband’s testimony contested Wife’s asserted income and profits.
- The trial court acted as the finder of fact and credited Husband’s testimony on disputed evidence; no baseline valuation for GTS could be established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is GTS a marital asset subject to division? | Jones-Shaw asserts GTS’s value accrued during the marriage. | Shaw contends there is no proven value increase attributable to the marriage. | No, insufficient evidence of GTS value or growth. |
| Did any value increase of GTS during the marriage result from spousal effort? | Wife argues contributions increased GTS’s value. | Husband argues value growth was due to market forces/other factors. | Insufficient evidence of baseline and causation; no marital asset recognized. |
| Should Wife receive attorney fees or discovery-related expenses? | Wife seeks attorney fees due to discovery disputes. | Husband disputes entitlement to fees; discovery issues unresolved. | No award of attorney fees or discovery expenses; case declined to grant such relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bass v. Bass, 264 Ga. 506 (1994) (court determines asset-type question is legal; evidence of value for marital asset varies)
- Miller v. Miller, 288 Ga. 274 (2010) (three-pronged valuation methods for closely-held corporations)
- Wright v. Wright, 277 Ga. 133 (2003) (applies to premarital funds and appreciation due to spousal effort)
- Armour v. Holcombe, 288 Ga. 50 (2010) (growth due to market forces may negate marital asset characterization)
- Turner v. Trammel, 285 Ga. 847 (2009) (finder of fact credibility and weight of evidence governs)
- Weaver v. Weaver, 263 Ga. 56 (1993) (broad discretion in awarding attorney fees in divorce actions)
- Ruffin v. State, 283 Ga. 87 (2008) (Rule 22 deeming abandonment of arguments in appellate briefing)