Scherer v. TESTINO
291 Ga. 75
Ga.2012Background
- Testino and Scherer divorced in 2008; Stamen Medical Systems was awarded to Testino.
- The amended settlement and asset transfer agreements required Scherer to relinquish ownership and not interfere with Stamen;规定 used until July 3, 2008 and 30 days post-execution for account maintenance.
- Testino acquired a new Medicare number in 2009 and stopped filing under Scherer’s number; Scherer notified intent to close the business checking account in June 2009.
- Scherer closed the account July 13, 2009 and remitted the balance to Testino; the trial court found contempt for violation of the decree and agreements.
- Judge reversed contempt findings, holding there was no violation and that the trial court impermissibly modified the agreements; damages and attorney fees award vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in holding contempt for closing account | Scherer complied with agreements | Trial court properly interpreted and enforced agreements | Abuse of discretion; no contempt |
| Whether damages and fees were proper given the contempt ruling | Damages tied to contempt | Damages improper due to no contempt | Reversed; damages/fees vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaufmann v. Kaufmann, 246 Ga. 266 (1980) (trial court must define duties in clear terms for contempt)
- Hall v. Nelson, 282 Ga. 441 (2007) (courts may interpret but not modify orders in contempt)
- Killingsworth v. Killingsworth, 286 Ga. 234 (2009) (clarification vs modification of original order)
- Cason v. Cason, 281 Ga. 296 (2006) (contractual terms: clear, unambiguous, enforce plain meaning)
- Page v. Baylard, 281 Ga. 586 (2007) (plain meaning enforced when unambiguous)
- Farris v. Farris, 285 Ga. 331 (2009) (contempt findings foundational for damages)