Pittman v. State
288 Ga. 589
| Ga. | 2011Background
- State filed a RICO action March 8, 2010 against Bobby Pittman, Judy Pittman, and Jumping Jacks alleging illegal electronic gambling at Jumping Jacks since July 2009.
- Complaint sought injunctive relief, divestiture of interests, and forfeiture of in-rem property including electronic gaming devices and currency.
- Trial court granted a temporary restraining order ex parte, prohibiting disposal of assets and appointing a temporary receiver.
- On April 9, 2010, court granted an interlocutory injunction and continued the receivership to preserve assets and protect creditors.
- Defendants appealed asserting TRO/injunction/receivership issues, bond concerns, intervention, and dismissal arguments; Supreme Court affirmed.
- Court affirmed the disposition, declining to rule on some issues as not ripe or abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TRO without notice was valid | State argues ex parte TRO warranted to preserve assets | Pittmans contend lack of notice invalidated TRO | TRO validity not dispositive; interlocutory injunction upheld |
| Whether the interlocutory injunction and receivership were proper | State needed to preserve assets and prevent dissipation | Defendants claim discretionary abuse | Court did not abuse discretion; receivership and injunction affirmed |
| Whether the failure to require bond under OCGA 16-14-6(b) was error | State did not require bond to protect interests | Defendants argued for bond; receiver bond discretionary | Issue not reviewed because no motion for bond by defendants; not error here |
| Whether the motion to intervene was ripe for review | State opposes intervention until response filed | Intervention motion should be decided | Intervention ruling not ripe for review; not decided on appeal |
| Whether the in-personam dismissal issue was preserved | N/A | Record lacking argument on appeal | Issue abandoned on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ebon Foundation v. Oatman, 269 Ga. 340 (Ga. 1998) (temporary receivership and injunctive relief proper to preserve status quo)
- Richardson v. Roland, 267 Ga. 34 (Ga. 1996) (urgent preservation of assets when dissipation possible)
- Chrysler Ins. Co. v. Dorminey, 271 Ga. 555 (Ga. 1999) (broad discretion to appoint a receiver; preserve property during litigation)
- Ga. Rehabilitation Center v. Newnan Hosp., 284 Ga. 68 (Ga. 2008) (discretion to grant receivership and preserve assets; status quo)