LANDRY v. WALSH; And Vice Versa
342 Ga. App. 283
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Janine Landry and Daniel Walsh divorced in 2011 with joint legal custody and Landry having primary physical custody; a settlement gave Landry ultimate decision-making authority.
- Walsh filed for custody modification and contempt in 2014, disputing the children’s medical/psychiatric care; after a two-day bench trial the court awarded Walsh sole legal custody, supervised visitation for Landry, child support, and $4,000 in fees (First Fee Award).
- Walsh moved for a new trial on fees and separately sought sanctions under OCGA § 9-15-14; the trial court later awarded $50,000 under OCGA § 9-15-14 (Second Fee Award).
- Before trial Walsh moved to exclude testimony of the children’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Stuart Davis, invoking psychiatrist-patient privilege; the trial court excluded the testimony and denied Landry’s motion to reconsider.
- On appeal Landry challenged the exclusion of Dr. Davis’s testimony and the Second Fee Award; Walsh cross-appealed the First Fee Award as inadequate and argued alternative statutory bases for fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of treating psychiatrist’s testimony was reversible error | Landry: testimony was crucial about children’s mental state and her parenting ability | Walsh: communications privileged; testimony barred by privilege | Affirmed — Landry failed to proffer substance of excluded testimony or show prejudice, so no reversible error |
| Validity of $50,000 fee award under OCGA § 9-15-14 | Landry: award unsupported because Walsh presented no evidence tying fees to sanctionable conduct or showing reasonableness | Walsh: court properly sanctioned based on conduct; counsel stated total fees incurred | Reversed — trial court failed to identify statutory subsection or underlying conduct and Walsh presented no evidentiary basis for the award |
| Validity of $4,000 fee award (First Fee Award) under OCGA § 19-6-2 | Walsh: (challenging adequacy) court erred in awarding fees under § 19-6-2 without findings; seeks remand for evidence under other statutes | Landry: fee award was in order (implicit) | Reversed — trial court abused discretion; Walsh presented no evidence of relative financial circumstances required under § 19-6-2; Walsh waived alternative statutory claims by not requesting them at trial |
| Whether appellate court should remand for reconsideration of fee awards | Landry: second fee award should be vacated/remanded with findings | Walsh: sought remand to seek fees under other statutes | Court: vacated/reversed both fee awards; remand unnecessary because Walsh failed to present requisite evidence and waived other theories |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornton v. Hemphill, 300 Ga. App. 647 (broad trial-court discretion in evidentiary rulings; proffer required to show prejudice)
- Clemens v. State, 318 Ga. App. 16 (appellant must proffer excluded testimony to show harm)
- Woods v. Hall, 315 Ga. App. 93 (trial court must state statutory basis and conduct supporting OCGA § 9-15-14 award)
- Holloway v. Holloway, 288 Ga. 147 (fee award reversed where no cogent evidence of work performed)
- Hughes v. Great Southern Midway, Inc., 265 Ga. 94 (reversal where no evidence of hours, rates, or reasonableness for fee award)
- Amoakuh v. Issaka, 299 Ga. 132 (findings on parties’ relative financial circumstances required for OCGA § 19-6-2 awards)