McCarthy v. Ashment-Mccarthy
295 Ga. 231
Ga.2014Background
- Parties (Husband Joseph B. McCarthy and Wife Annie J. Ashment‑McCarthy) divorced; financial agreement was read into the record at a pre‑trial hearing on March 2, 2012; both parties then stated under oath they agreed.
- Decree entered May 22, 2012 enforcing the agreement and awarding Wife $2,550 in attorney fees related to a motion to enforce; on June 28, 2012 the court separately awarded Wife $12,580 in attorney fees for the main divorce action.
- Husband fired his counsel after the pre‑trial hearing, then filed pro se motions: a motion to set aside the Decree and a motion for new trial (the latter contained no grounds).
- Husband’s motions alleged no failure to comply with OCGA § 19‑6‑15 (child support findings) and did not raise the statute below; he first raised that issue on appeal.
- Husband challenged both attorney‑fee awards as lacking required factual findings; the trial court issued a supplemental order (Jan. 14, 2013) attempting to clarify the bases for its awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McCarthy) | Defendant's Argument (Ashment‑McCarthy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court compliance with OCGA § 19‑6‑15 (child support deviation findings) | Trial court failed to make the written findings required to support upward deviation | Issue was not raised below; therefore waived | Waived on appeal for failure to raise below; no review of § 19‑6‑15 compliance |
| $2,550 fee award for motion to enforce (basis/finding sufficiency) | Award lacked required findings of fact | Trial court supplemented the record, stating award was under OCGA § 9‑15‑14 because Husband lacked substantial justification | Affirmed; supplemental order cured the deficiency |
| $12,580 fee award for main divorce action (basis/finding sufficiency) | Award lacked statutory basis and required findings under OCGA § 19‑6‑2 | Trial court cited Haley (contract/discretion) but there was no fee clause; Wife sought fees under OCGA § 19‑6‑2 | Vacated and remanded for findings/reconsideration because required OCGA § 19‑6‑2 findings were not made |
| Other attacks on trial court discretion | Broad challenge to trial court’s discretion | Trial court acted within discretion on remaining matters | Lacking merit; affirmed as to other enumerations |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway v. Holloway, 288 Ga. 147 (2010) (discusses § 19‑6‑15 requirements for deviation findings)
- Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk, 286 Ga. 589 (2010) (motion for new trial is the proper vehicle to challenge § 19‑6‑15 compliance)
- Turner v. Turner, 285 Ga. 866 (2009) (details the written findings required when deviating from presumptive child support)
- Leggette v. Leggette, 284 Ga. 432 (2008) (requires explanation of statutory basis and findings for attorney‑fee awards)
- Haley v. Haley, 282 Ga. 204 (2007) (distinguishes fee claims grounded in contract versus statutory fee provisions)
- Branham v. Branham, 290 Ga. 349 (2012) (addresses waiver principles)
- Brogdon v. Brogdon, 290 Ga. 618 (2012) (examples of raising § 19‑6‑15 below preserves review)
- Walls v. Walls, 291 Ga. 757 (2012) (attorney‑fee finding requirements reaffirmed)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 291 Ga. 762 (2012) (same)
- Demmons v. Wilson‑Demmons, 293 Ga. 349 (2013) (further examples of preserving § 19‑6‑15 claims below)